c  c  e     _  c 


«        «    <•    «    ,C    c       c 


|)\\  ID    K  \K  li)\ 

S|.i-akri  •-f  till-  Mihsi.uii  'IViiiluiial  II. him-  uI  l<l•lM.•^^•lUativc^   IMN,  I'u-  ivliiu  ol  liic    Mi>M.iin 
C'oiisiluitioiial  Convent  lull   iSzo.  I'nitcJ  Slates  Scnalor  fitun  Missmiii  iKuo-lSjO 


72S,n— I 


MISSOURI'S 
STRUGGLE  FOR  STATEHOOD 

1804-1821 


BY 


FLOYD  CALVIN  SHOEMAKER,  A.B.,  A.M. 

Secretary  of 
The  State  Historical  Society  of  Missouri 


THE  HUGH  STEPHENS  PRINTING  CO. 

JEFFERSON*   CITY 
1916 


f 


Copyrighted,   1916 

By 

FLOYD   CALVIN   SHOEMAKER 

All  rights  reserved 


TO  ISIDOR  LOEB 

Native  Missourian,  Citizen  of  Public  Spirit, 
Distinguished  Scholar  and  Educator,  Guide  and 
Teacher  in  my  Early  Study  of  Government  and 
Politics,  This  Book,  in  Token  of  Friendship  and 
Gratitude  Sincere,  is  Dedicated. 


333933 


PREFACE. 

To  relate  in  an  accurate  manner  the  story  of  Missouri's 
struggle  for  statehood,  of  her  first  constitutional  convention 
and  constitution,  and  of  her  first  state  election  and  legislature, 
has  been  my  purpose.  The  birth  of  a  state  is  an  important 
event.  The  travail  of  the  State  of  Missouri  was  especially 
significant  even  in  the  history  of  the  Nation.  Congress  alone 
was  forced  to  adopt  two  compromises  after  four  sessions  of 
debate  before  the  ''Missouri  Question"  was  settled.  The  ex- 
istence of  slavery  in  new  states  and  territories  was  for  the  first 
time  the  great  problem  in  public  discussion  and  Congressional 
debate.  The  national  side  of  Missouri's  struggle  for  statehood 
has  received  more  or  less  attention  from  writers:  the  local  side 
has  been  passed  over  with  little  comment.  The  latter  made  its 
appeal  to  me  over  six  years  ago.  Beginning  in  1909  and  con- 
tinuing to  1911,  I  made  a  study  of  the  history  and  origin  of  the 
Missouri  constitution  of  1820.  During  the  years  following  I 
enlarged  this  study  to  its  present  scope. 

Few  secondary  works  were  used  in  this  volume.  Private 
and  public  manuscripts,  laws,  constitutions,  journals  of 
legislative  bodies  and  constitutional  conventions,  memoirs  and 
newspapers,  have  been  the  bases  of  most  statements.  The 
chief  defect  of  the  work  lies  in  its  lack  of  a  Bibliography.  This 
has  been  largely  remedied,  however,  by  the  foot-notes  which 
explain  where  the  material  consulted  may  be  found. 

To  a  number  of  persons  I  am  indebted  for  aid.  For  sug- 
gestions and  criticisms  of  a  literary  character,  I  beg  to  acknowl- 
edge the  kind  services  of  Profs.  H.  M.  Belden,  A.  H.  R.  Fair- 
child  and  H.  McC.  Burrowes,  of  the  English  Department  of 
the  University  of  Missouri.  For  assistance  of  a  historical 
nature,  I  am  under  obligations  to  Prof.  F.  F.  Stephens,  of  the 
History  Department  of  the  University  of  Missouri,  and  to  the 
Hon.  Louis  Houck,  of  Cape  Girardeau,  Missouri.  To  Mr. 
Houck  I  am  specially  indebted  for  his  mature  advice  and  sug- 

(5) 


6  Preface. 

gestions  on  several  of  the  early  chapters,  for  the  information 
obtained  from  his  History  of  Missouri,  and  for  the  use  of  most 
of  the  cuts  in  this  book.  No  general  work  on  Missouri  history 
down  to  1820  bears  comparison  with  Houck's  History  of  Mis- 
souri. This  work  should  be  in  the  hands  of  every  student  of 
western  and  Missouri  history.  It  and  Prof.  H.  A.  Trexler's 
Slavery  in  Missouri  were,  in  fact,  practically  the  only  secondary 
works  that  helped  me. 

To  the  hundreds  of  Missourians  who  furnished  me  with 
information  relating  to  the  delegates  who  framed  Missouri's 
first  constitution,  I  especially  wish  to  acknowledge  thanks  of 
appreciation.  Without  their  help  and  the  kind  services  of  the 
editors  of  the  State  in  forwarding  my  quest  for  information, 
I  could  never  have  written  the  chapter  on  The  Fathers  of  the 
State.  Without  the  aid  of  Dr.  Mereness,  of  Washington,  D.  C, 
I  could  not  have  obtained  copies  of  the  early  Missouri  petitions 
in  the  National  archives.  To  Mr.  Putnam,  librarian  of  the  Li- 
brary of  Congress,  and  to  his  courteous  assistants,  I  am  under 
obligations  for  help  of  the  greatest  value.  Modesty  should 
not,  I  think,  estop  me  from  also  acknowledging  the  extent  and 
character  of  the  information  obtained  from  the  invaluable  col- 
lections of  The  State  Historical  Society  of  Missouri,  Most  of 
my  work  was  done  in  the  library  of  this  institution  and  to  it 
I  feel  under  special  obligations. 

The  delay  in  publishing  this  work  has  been  a  source  of  deep 
regret  to  me.  The  Hugh  Stephens  Printing  Company  did  well 
its  part,  my  duties  in  The  State  Historical  Society  prevented 
me,  however,  from  handling  proof  as  fast  as  I  had  expected. 

The  approaching  centennial  of  Missouri's  statehood  makes 
opportune  this  volume.  From  it  facts  may  be  obtained  that  will 
give  a  more  secure  foundation  to  the  mass  of  popular  literature 
that  will  be  published  on  Missouri  history  during  the  next  half 
decade.  To  have  accurate  information  on  Missouri's  struggle 
for  statehood,  on  her  first  constitutional  convention  and  con- 
stitution, on  her  first  state  election  and  on  tlie  iiuur  workings  of 
her  first  general  assembly,  is  not  only  desirai)le  but  important 
to  Missouri  and  Missourians.  To  j)la(H'  this  information  in 
the  hands  of  all  seeking  it,  is  m>'  excuse  for  writing  this  book. 


CONTENTS. 


Page 
Chapter  I.     Missouri  Constitutional  History  During 

THE  Territorial  Period 9 

Chapter  1 1 .     Missouri  Petitions  for  Statehood  and  the 

Struggle  in  Congress 37 

Chapter  III.     Popular  Opinion  in  Missouri  in  1819.  .. .     81 
Chapter  IV.     Popular  Opinion  in  Missouri  in  1820 — 

Election  of  Delegates 114 

Chapter  V.     Fathers  of  the  State — Personnel  of  the 

Constitutional  Convention  of  1820 135 

Chapter  VI.     Labors  of  the  Convention 166 

Chapter  VII.  Authorship  of  the  Missouri  Constitu- 
tion OF  1820 193 

Chapter  VIII.  Origin  and  Content  of  the  Constitu- 
tion OF  1820 212 

Chapter  IX.    A  De  Facto  State 254 

Chapter  X.     Second  Missouri  Compromise 290 

Chapter  XI.     Statehood  in  the  Union 302 

Appendix  I.  Memorial  to  Congress  of  the  Citizens 
OF  Missouri  Territory,  1817,  Requesting  State- 
hood    321 

Appendix  II.  Memorial  and  Resolutions  of  Missouri 
Territorial  Legislature,  1818,  Petitioning  Con- 
gress for  Statehood 324 

Appendix  III.  Missouri  Constitution  of  1820  and 
Ordinance  of  Missouri  Constitutional  Conven- 
tion, 1820 329 

Appendix  IV.     Missouri's  Solemn  Public  Act,  1821 ....  360 
Index 363 


(7) 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS. 


Page 

Barton,   David.     By  courtesy  of  Mrs.   Josephine   Barton, 

Kansas  City,   Mo Frontispiece 

Baber,  Hiram  H.     From  Louis  Houck's  History  of  Missouri, 

Vol.  III.,  p.  265 148 

Bates,  Edward.     From  Louis  Houck's  Hist,  of  Mo.,  HL  18.  120 
Benton,  Thomas  H.     From  Louis  Houck's  Hist,  of  Mo.,  HL 

268 120 

Boundary  of  Missouri  as  First  Suggested  in  1817.     From 

Houck's  Hist,  of  Mo.,  1.3 66 

Boundary  of  Missouri  as  Suggested  by  the  Territorial  Legis- 
lature in  1818.     From  Houck's  Hist,  of  Mo.,  I.  5 66 

Boundary  of  Missouri   as  Adopted   by  Congress  in   1820. 

From  Houck's  Hist,  of  Mo.,  L  6 66 

Boundary  of   Missouri   with   the   Platte   Purchase  Added. 

From  Houck's  Hist,  of  Mo.,  I.  12 66 

Charless,  Joseph.     From  Houck's  Hist,  of  Mo.,  III.  65 120 

Chouteau,  Pierre,  Jr.     From  Houck's  Hist,  of  Mo.,  HI.  254  120 

Cook,  John  D.     From  Houck's  Hist,  of  Mo.,  III.  266 148 

Jones,  John  Rice.     From  Houck's  Hist,  of  Mo.,  HI.  257 ....  148 

McNair,  Alexander.     From  Houck's  Hist,  of  Mo.,  III.  253.  120 
"Mansion   House"   Hotel.     From  Official  Manual  of  Mis- 
souri 1913-1914,  p.  15,  by  courtesy  of  Hon.  Cornelius 

Roach,  Sec.  of  State 166 

"Missouri  Hotel."     Ibid 166 

Missouri's  Temporary  Capitol  at  St.  Charles,  Mo.,   1821- 

1826.     Ibid 310 

Pettus,  William  G.     From  Houck's  Hist,  of  Mo.,  HI.  250.  .  120 

Ramsay,  Jonathan.     From  Houck's  Hist,  of  Mo.,  III.  263.  148 

Reeves,  B.  H.     From  Houck's  Hist,  of  Mo.,  III.  259 148 

Scott,  John.     From  Houck's //z5/.  of  Mo.,  III.  13 148 


(S) 


CHAPTER  I. 

MISSOURI  CONSTITUTIONAL  HISTORY  DURING  THE 
TERRITORIAL  PERIOD. 

In  the  history  of  an  American  commonwealth  there  appear 
relatively  few  dates  that  chronicle  events  of  commanding  im- 
portance. Ranking  first  in  the  history  of  Missouri  and  one  of 
the  foremost  in  that  of  the  United  States,  is  April  30,  1803. 
On  that  date  was  concluded  the  treaty  between  this  Nation  and 
France  for  the  cession  of  Louisiana.  The  ratification  of  this 
treaty  was  advised  by  the  United  States  Senate  and  was  made 
by  President  Jefferson  on  October  21,  1803;  and  on  the  same 
day  ratifications  were  exchanged  and  a  proclamation  w^as  issued 
to  that  effect.^  By  this  treaty  the  United  States  came  into  the 
absolute  possession  of  the  largest  and  most  valuable  extent  of 
territory  that  was  ever  obtained  purely  through  purchase  by 
any  nation  since  the  dawn  of  history.  Prior  to  1762  France 
had  held  legal  title  to  Louisiana,  but  since  the  settlements  made 
in  that  part  now  included  in  the  State  of  Missouri  had  been 
few,  the  French  law  need  not  receive  consideration  here,  From 
1762  to  1800  Spain  held  legal  title  to  Louisiana.  By  the  Treaty 
of  San  Ildefonso,  October  1,  1800,  Louisiana  was  retroceded  by 
Spain  to  France,  but  Spain  remained  in  actual  possession  almost 
up  to  the  time  of  transfer  to  the  United  States  in  1803.  During 
a  period  of  thirty-four  years  the  Spanish  law  of  Upper  Louisiana 
governed  the  people  within  the  present  limits  of  Missouri. ^ 
Nor  were  these  laws  less  binding  after  the  cession  of  1803, 
except  as  they  were  expressly  annulled,  superseded,  or  amended.^ 
However,  for  our  purposes,  the  provisions  of  the  Spanish  law^s 


1  Treaties  &  Conventions,  I.  508-11;  Mo.  Ter.  Laws,  I.  1-1. 

2  Houck,  Hist.  Mo.,  I.  287,  298.  The  secret  treaty  of  Fontainebleau,  De- 
cember 3,  1762,  ceded  the  territory  west  of  the  Mississippi  to  Spain.  France 
officially  advised  the  director-general  of  Louisiana  of  this  fact  in  a  letter  dated 
April  21,  1764.  On  the  18th  of  August,  1769,  Spain  took  possession  of  Louisiana, 
and  on  May  20,  1770,  Upper  Louisiana  was. formally  surrendered  to  Spain. 

•  Casselberry,  First  Laws  of  the  Miss.  Valley,  Western  Journal,  I.  191f ;  4  Mo. 
Reports,  p.  380;  10  Mo.  Reports,  p.  199;  Mo.  Ter.  Laws,  1816,  p.  436. 

(9) 


10  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

■-> 
of  Upper  Louisiana  may  be  disregarded.  The  English  system 
of  jurisprudence  gradually  superseded  that  of  the  Continent 
in  Upper  Louisiana,  and  today  the  organic  law  of  Missouri  rests 
on  an  Anglo-American  basis  beginning  with  the  act  of  Congress 
of  October  31,  1803. 

It  is  important  to  notice  in  this  connection  one  of  the 
articles  of  the  treaty  of  cession  of  1803.  Article  III  stated: 
"The  inhabitants  of  the  ceded  territory  shall  be  incorporated 
in  the  Union  of  the  United  States,  and  admitted  as  soon  as 
possible,  according  to  the  principles  of  the  federal  constitution, 
to  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  rights,  advantages,  and  immunities 
of  citizens  of  the  United  States;  and  in  the  meantime  they  shall 
be  maintained  and  protected  in  the  free  enjoyment  of  their 
liberty,  property,  and  the  religion  which  they  profess."  At  the 
time  of  Missouri's  struggle  for  admission  in  1819  and  1820,  it 
appears  from  the  articles  in  the  territorial  newspapers  that 
practically  every  well  informed  Missourian  was  familiar  with 
this  article  and  especially  with  that  part  which  guaranteed  the 
inhabitants  protection  ''in  the  free  enjoyment  of  their  liberty, 
property,  and  the  religion,"  etc.  Slaves  formed  part  of  the 
"property"  of  the  people  of  Upper  Louisiana  prior  to  1803,  and 
also  after  that  time,  and  Congressional  dictation  on  this  subject 
only  served  to  recall  the  third  article  of  the  treaty  of  1803. 

Under  Spanish  rule,  the  Province  of  Louisiana  was  divided 
into  a  lower  and  an  upper  district  for  the  purpose  of  facilitating 
governmental  administration.  There  were  several  reasons  for 
this  division,  the  more  important  being  the  great  distance  sep- 
arating the  two  centers  of  settlement  near  the  mouth  of  the 
Mississippi  and  that  of  the  Missouri.''  Also,  the  population 
around  New  Orleans,  which  was  the  seat  of  government  of 
Lower  Louisiana,  was  greater  and  represented  a  higher  stage  of 
development  than  we  find  in  Upper  Louisiana.     The  Governor- 

«  Nicollet  in  his  history  of  St.  Louis,  page  92.  states  that  in  1763.  Laclede, 
the  founder  of  Ht.  Louis,  took  three  months  to  come  from  New  Orleans  to  Ste. 
Genevieve  with  his  flotilla,  a  distance  of  1.280  miles. 

Cf.  also  Houclt.  Hist.  Mo.,  II.  4. 

It  tool<  about  three  months  to  ascend  the  Mississippi  at  tliat  time  as  is  also 
evidenced  in  tiu;  Hi'i)()rt  of  Don  I'edro  IMernas  to  Cov.  O'Keilly  dateil  Oct.  HI. 
17<i'.).  (Houck.  Spanish  licuimc  in  Mo.,  I.  (\{\-7r».)  and  in  a  letter  of  l''ernaudo  De 
Leyba  dated  July   11.   1778.      (Ibid.,  pp.   l()3f.) 


Constitutional  History  During  Territorial  Period.  11 

General  at  New  Orleans  exercised  direct  jurisdiction  over  Lower 
Louisiana  and  appellate  jurisdiction  over  the  upper  district; 
and  a  Lieutenant-Governor  at  St.  Louis  exercised  direct  juris- 
diction  over   Upper   Louisiana.^ 

At  the  time  of  the  cession  the  population  oi  Upper  Louis- 
iana was  over  ten  thousand,^  of  which  over  one-half  were  Amer- 
icans.'' Not  only  did  Spanish  law  give  place  to  English  law, 
but  even  Spanish  and  French  influence  as  represented  by  the 
population  had  already  greatly  diminished  and  was  soon  to 
become  a  negligible  quantity  as  far  as  legislation  was  concerned. 
Excepting  some  of  the  large  Spanish  land  grantees  and  a  part 
of  the  American  settlers,  especially  those  around  Cape  Girar- 
deau and  Mine  a  Breton,  the  inhabitants  of  Upper  Louisiana 
neither  rejoiced  nor  were  they  even  reconciled  either  at  the 
time  when  the  treaty  of  cession  became  known  or  later  when 
the  actual  transfer  was  made.^     As  an  historical  illustration  of 


6  Stoddard,  Sketches  of  Louisiana,  chap.  VIII.  Loeb,  Beginning  of  Mo.  Leg. 
in  Mo.  Hist.  R.,  I.  53f. 

«  Stoddard,  op.  cit.,  p.  226,  gives  the  population  in  1804  as  10,340—9,020  whites 
and  1,320  slaves. 

'  Ibid.,  p.  225,  states  that  three-fifths  of  the  population  were  "English  Amer- 
icans." 

Perkins  and  Peck,  Annals  of  the  West,  pp.  543f.,  gives  the  total  population  of 
Upper  Louisiana  in  1804  as  10,120  and  divides  it  as  follows:  French  and  Spanish, 
3,760;  Anglo-Americans,  5,090;  Blacks,  1,270. 

Rufus  Easton,  later  Territorial  Delegate  to  Congress  from  Missouri,  in  a 
letter  dated  at  St.  Louis,  January  17,  1805,  to  President  Jefferson,  states  that  in 
1801  the  census  taken  of  the  inhabitants  of  Upper  Louisiana  showed  a  population 
of  10,301;  and  that  according  to  the  best  informed  persons  in  the  district  the 
population  at  the  close  of  1804  had  risen  to  over  12,000.  Of  this  latter  number 
he  thought  that  two-fifths  were  French  and  the  others  mostly  immigrants  from 
the  United  States.  (Copy  of  this  letter  in  State  Hist.  Soc.  of  Missouri:  original 
in  Mss.  Div.,  Library  of  Cong.,  Jefferson  Papers,  2d  Series,  vol.  32.) 

8  "On  the  9th  day  of  July,  1803,  at  seven  o'clock  p.  m. — and  the  precision 
with  which  this  date  is  registered  indicates  the  profound  sensation  with  which 
the  news  was  received — the  inhabitants  of  St.  Louis  learned,  indirectly  at  first, 
that  Spain  had  retroceded  Louisiana  to  Napoleon,  and  that  the  latter  had  sold 
it  to  the  United  States."     Nicollet,  p.  89. 

"It  is  easier  to  imagine  than  to  describe  the  astonishment  and  wonder  of  the 
good  colonists,  when,  as  a  sequel  of  the  sundry  oflBcial  acts  by  which  they  were 
declared  republicans,  and  their  country  a  member  of  the  great  American  confed- 
eration founded  by  Washington,  they  witnessed  the  arrival  of  a  legion  of  judges, 
lawyers,  notaries,  collectors  of  taxes,  etc.,  etc.,  and,  above  all,  a  flock  of  vampires 
in  the  shape  of  land  speculators.  Liberty,  with  the  popular  institutions  that 
accompany  her,  was  welcomed;  their  advantages  were  soon  understood;  etc." 
Ibid.,  pp.  90f.  This  last  statement  by  Nicollet  is  not  entirely  true.  American 
institutions  were  not  welcomed,  especially  by  the  better  class  of  Frenchmen,  and 


12  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 


however  quickly  they  were  understood,  their  advantages  were  late  in  being  ap- 
preciated. See  below  the  account  of  the  French  convention  of  delegates  in  Sep- 
tember,   1804. 

Mr.  Priram  says: — 

"When  the  transfer  was  completely  effected — when  in  the  presence  of  the 
assembled  population,  the  flag  of  the  United  States  had  replaced  that  of  Spain — 
the  tears  and  lamentations  of  the  ancient  inhabitants,  proved  how  much  they 
dreaded  the  change  which  the  treatj'  of  cession  had  brought  about."  Perkins  and 
Peck,  op.  cit.,  p.  537. 

Mr.  Houck  does  not  take  the  same  position  on  this  point.  He  says:  "With- 
out the  least  objection  on  the  part  of  the  French  population  of  Upper  Louisiana, 
and  to  the  great  satisfaction  of  the  American  settlers,  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
United  States  was  thus  extended  over  the  new  territory,"  (Houck,  Hist.  Mo., 
II.  373).  Speaking  of  the  sentiment  in  Cape  Girardeau,  he  adds:  "At  Cape 
Girardeau  the  people,  who  were  all  Americans,  with  the  exception  of  Lorimier 
and  Cousin,  were  pleased  greatly  with  the  transfer  of  the  country  and  seem  to 
have  been  decidedly  hostile,  if  not  to  the  Spanish  Government,  to  the  Spanish 
officers."  {Ibid.,  p.  364.)  However,  regarding  New  Madrid  he  makes  the  following 
statement:  "But  the  people  of  New  Madrid  were  not  pleased  with  the  change 
of  government  and  he  li.  e.  Don  Juan  La  Vallee,  who  surrendered  the  New  Mad- 
rid fort  to  Captain  Bissell]  writes  that  'this  change  has  caused  the  greatest  anger 
among  these  habitans,  who  live  here,  and  especially  on  the  day  of  surrender, 
during  the  ceremonies  of  which  they  have  expressed  the  greatest  grief.'  4"  (Ibid., 
p.  363.  The  footnote  No.  4  gives  the  authority  for  the  foregoing  as  follows: 
"General  Archives  of  the  Indies,  Seville — Report  of  La  Vallee  to  the  Marquis 
de  Casa  Calvo  and  Don  Manuel  de  Salcedo — dated  IVIarch  29,  1804.") 

Even  as  regards  the  inhabitants  of  Cape  Girardeau,  Major  T.  W.  Waters, 
a  resident  of  that  town,  wrote  in  a  letter  dated  August  23,  1804,  to  President 
Jefferson  as  follows:  "I  will  observe  one  thing  to  you.  Sir,  that  many  here  do 
not  like  the  change  and  every  law  that  is  passed  that  puts  them  in  a  worse  situa- 
tion than  they  would  have  been  under  the  Spaniards  is  criticised  and  the  worst 
construction  put  on,  and  those  that  are  fond  of  the  change  feel  disappointed  at 
the  law  that  Congress  has  passed  for  the  government  of  this  country."  {Ibid., 
pp.  385f.)  It  is  however,  quite  probable  that  Major  Waters  referred  purely  to 
the  change  in  sentiment  after  the  cession  was  made  and  after  the  law  of  Congress 
of  March  26,   1804,  became  known. 

Regarding  the  holders  of  large  Spanish  land  grants  and  incidentally  of  the 
sentiment  in  St.  Louis  at  the  time  of  the  cession,  Mr.  Houck  says:  "A  few  French 
land  speculators,  who had  secured  large  and  important  conces- 
sions of  land,  no  doubt  anticipated  to  reap  great  benefits.  They  well  understood 
that  land  values  would  greatly  increase,  because  free  donations  of  land  to  actual 
settlers  would  no  longer  be  made.  Under  the  new  government  these  holders  of 
concessions  and  their  assignees  at  once  became  and  were  regarded  as  the  landed 
capitalists  of  the  new  territory.  Such  being  the  case,  it  is  very  probable  that 
one  of  the  chief  beneficiaries  of  the  favors  of  the  late  Spanish  authorities  became 
very  enthusiastic  and  called  for  'three  cheers  in  honor  of  his  adopted  country', 
as  has  been  stated.  Neverthele.ss,  it  is  said  that  Charles  Ciratiot  was  about  the 
only  man  in  St.  Louis  who  took  a  personal  interest  In  the  transfer  of  the  CDuntry 
to  the  United  States;  that  the  people  as  a  whole  were  inditrerent.  Hut  Gratiot 
had  received  large  land  grants  and  perhaps  understood  b(>tter  than  anyone  in 
St.  Louis  at  that  time  the  Immense  l)eueilt  a  change  of  goveniinent  implied." 
{Ibid.,  pp.  373f.)  Mr.  Houck  further  says:  "The  general  apathy  of  tlie  French 
inhabitants  at  the  time  lead  |led|  many  to  think  that  the  Inhabitants  were  not 
fit   for   self-government."      {Ibid.,   p.   37r).) 

Major  Amos  Stoddard,  wlio  certainly  was  most  competent  to  judge  of  the 
sentiment  in  Upper  Louisiana  at  the  time  of  the  cession,  wrote  as  follows:  "In- 
deed, few  oj  the  French,  and  part  of  the  ICnoIish  Americans  only,  were  at  first  rocon- 


Constitutional  History  During  Territorial  Period.  13 

ciled  to  the  change,  though  they  never  manifested  any  discontent.  The  former 
did  not  doubt  the  justice  of  the  United  States;  but  they  seemed  to  feel  as  if  they 
had  been  sold  in  open  market,  and  by  this  means  degraded;  the  treaty  of  1762, 
and  the  change  under  it  in  1769,  rushed  on  their  minds,  and  awakened  all  their 
apprehensions.  The  latter  anticipated  taxation,  many  of  whom  had  abandoned 
their  native  country  to  avoid  it,  and  voluntarily  became  the  subjects  of  a  govern- 
ment, careful  not  to  impose  any  burdens  on  the  agricultural  part  of  the  com- 
munity." (Stoddard,  op.  cit.,  p.  311.  For  an  account  of  some  of  the  actual 
benefits  that  did  accrue  then  and  later  to  Upper  Louisiana  under  American  rule, 
cf.  ibid.,  pp.  253f.,  266:  and  Brackenridge,  Views  of  Louisiana,  pp.  140,  143-145.) 
(Italics  mine.) 

An  equally  reliable  authority  on  this  point  is  Rufus  Easton,  who  on  January 
17,  1805,  wrote  the  following  from  St.  Louis:  "That  they  the  French  inhabitants 
are  in  general  enemies  to  the  change  of  Government  requires  no  argument  to  dem- 
onstrate— it  depends  on  fact.  When  it  was  rumoured  thro'  [sic]  this  Country 
last  summer  that  a  recession  to  Spain  would  take  place,  joy  gladden  in  their  hearts — 
This  however  must  not  be  taken  for  a  universal  sentiment — It  is  only  that  of  the 
few  who  have  feasted  upon  the  labors  of  the  more  ignorant  and  industrious  and 
whom  they  prejudice  and  influence  as  they  please.  Many  have  sufiBcient  dis- 
cernment to  perceive  that  the  cession  to  the  United  States  advanced  their  landed 
property  at  least  two  hundred  per  centum  they  thank  the  stars  and  are  willing 
to  give  the  praise  to  whom  it  is  due."  (Letter  to  Pres.  Jefferson.  Copy  in  State 
Hist.  Soc.  of  Mo.  Original  in  Mss.  Div.,  Library  of  Congress.  Jefferson  Papers, 
2d  Series,  vol.  32.) 

Darby,  although  not  a  contemporary  authority,  was  well  acquainted  with 
many  who  witnessed  the  transfer  of  Upper  Louisiana  in  1804.  The  following 
quotation  is  from  his  work:  "It  was  Charles  Gratiot  who  requested  the  in- 
habitants, in  their  native  tongue,  when  the  ceremony  took  place,  to  cheer  the 
American  flag,  when  it  was  for  the  first  time  run  up  and  floated  to  the  breeze  on 
the  western  bank  of  the  Mississippi.  The  cheers  of  the  crowd  were  faint  and 
few,  as  many,  very  many  of  the  people  shed  bitter  tears  of  regret  at  being  trans- 
ferred, without  previous  knowledge,  from  the  sovereignty  of  a  government  and 
language  to  which  they  had  been  accustomed  and  fondly  attached,  and  under 
which  they  had  been  bred,  to  that  of  a  strange  government,  with  whose  manners, 
habits,  language,  and  laws  they  were  not  familiar.  There  existed,  moreover, 
in  the  minds  of  many  of  the  French  inhabitants  a  deep-rooted  prejudice  against 
the  Americans,  notwithstanding  the  encouraging  and  conciliating  speech  made 
by  their  countryman  and  friend,  Charles  Gratiot,  who  was  favorable  to,  and 
sustained  and  approved  the  transfer  of  the  country."  .  .  .  "Mr.  Jefferson,  from 
his  long  residence  in  Paris,  understood  the  French  character  well,  was  much 
attached  to  the  French  people,  and  was  aware  that  the  inhabitants  of  Louisiana 
disliked  and  were  greatly  opposed  to  the  American  government."  {Recollections, 
pp.   223f.) 

Scharff  quotes  Billon  as  follows  regarding  the  sentiment  in  St.  Louis  in  1804: 
"On  that  day  (March  9,  1804)  the  inhabitants  witnessed  a  scene  which,  to  much 
the  largest  portion  of  them,  was  fraught  with  sadness  and  apprehension.  These 
people  had  been  so  long  contented  and  happy  under  the  mild  sway  of  all  their 
Spanish  commandants,  with  one  exception  alone  (De  Leyba),  that  it  was  not  sur- 
prising they  should  have  entertained  those  feelings  at  being  transferred,  them- 
selves and  homes,  to  a  nation  whose  people  were  mainly  descended  from  the 
English,  a  nation  that  for  generations  back  they  had  looked  upon  as  the  natural 
and  hereditary  enemy  of  the  land  from  whence  they  sprung.  For  it  must  be 
borne  in  mind  that  they  were  nearly  all  of  French  origin,  and  although  under 
Spanish  dominion,  there  were  but  few  Spaniards  in  the  country,  outside  of  the 
officials  and  soldiery."     {Hist.  St.  Louis,  1.  259.) 


14  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

how  circumstances  may  alter  cases  might  be  noted  here  the 
cold  reception  extended  to  the  United  States  by  these  early 
Missourians  of  1804  when  they  first  learned  of  their  newly  made 
connection  with  the  Federal  Union  of  States,  and  on  the  other 
hand,  how  impassioned  they  were  fifteen  years  later  in  their 
arguments  for  admission  into  that  very  Union.  We  believe 
that  the  reasons  for  their  first  attitude  were:  their  attachment 
to  the  Spanish  regime  with  its  practical  freedom  from  taxes  and 
military  services,  with  its  swift  and  generally  true  justice,  its 
liberal  land  policy,  and  its  uniform  respect  for  French  institu- 
tions, customs  and  language;  and  their  dislike  of  American  laws 
and  institutions,  combined  with  the  fear  of  some  attack  on 
slavery,  such  as  the  Northwest  Ordinance  of  1787^.  Moreover, 
the  French  inhabitants  felt  insecure  of  their  religion  under  the 
new  Republic. ^^  Years  later  when  they  perceived  the  benefits 
that  would  flow  from  statehood  and  when  the  flood  of  American 
immigration  poured  in,  they  naturally  desired  admission  into 
the  Union. 

The  first  organic  law  of  American  origin  that  applied  to 
Louisiana  was  passed  at  the  first  session  of  the  Eighth  Congress 
of  the  United  States  on  October  31,  1803,  and  provided  a  tem- 
porary government  for  the  new  district.  This  act  empowered 
the  President  of  the  United  States  to  take  possession  of  Louis- 
iana, and  placed  under  his  direction  all  military,  civil  and  judicial 
powers  that  had  been  exercised  by  the  ofticials  of  the  existing 
government.     This  great  power  was  lodged  in  his  hands  until 


»  It  is  here  worthy  of  notice  that  on  January  23,  1804.  there  was  eomimini- 
cated  to  the  United  States  Senate  a  "Memorial  of  the  Anu'rican  Conveiitioii  for 
Promoting  the  Abolition  of  Slavery"  praying  Congress  to  prohibit  by  law  tiie 
importation  of  slaves  into  the  "Territory  of  Louisiana,  lately  eedi'il  to  the  I'nit  >d 
States."  This  memorial  actually  suggested  an  enactment  on  tliis  subject  similar 
to  the  one  in  the  Northwest  Ordinance.  Am.  State  Papers.  Misc.,  1.  ;i.S().  The 
chaotic  condition  of  society  which  had  prevailed  in  the  Illinois  country  after 
American  occupation  would  also  hardly  have  served  to  endear  the  United  States 
in  the  minds  of  many  of  both  the  French  and  American  settlers  who  had  immi- 
grated to  Upper  Louisiana  from  their  former  homes  on  the  east  bank  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi during  the  latter  eighties  and  the  nineties  of  the  ISth  century.  C).  also 
Kaskaskia  lircords  177S-17'.>().  in  ///.  Jlisl.  Collrclions,  V;  especially  letter  of  .John 
Itice  .Jones,  later  .Justice  of  Missouri  Sui)rem«>  Court,  datetl  Oct.  29.  17S0.  at 
Kaskaskia  to  Major  llamtramck.  {Ibid.,  ])\).  .'>M-.'>17.)  The  inhabitunt.s  of 
Upper  Louisiana,  esj)ecially  tlu-  «)l(ler  ones,  also  un(loui)te(lly  res»>nteil  the  manner 
of  cession  which  appeared  to  them  like  a  sale  In  the  op«'u  m.irket. 

'•  Alback's,  Annals  of  (he   West,  p.  777. 


Constitutional  History  During  Territorial  Period.  15 

Congress  made  other  regulations.^^  Strange  though  it  seems 
to  us  now,  this  law  was  not  unfavorably  received  by  the  French 
inhabitants  of  Louisiana.  And  the  reason  for  this  attitude  was 
not  because  they  excused  and  appreciated  it  as  a  temporary 
makeshift  government  and  therefore  as  a  necessary,  initiatory 
step  tow^ards  later  self-government,  but  rather  because  of  their 
natural  inclination  for  a  military  regime,  due  to  years  of  training 
under  just  such  a  centralized  government.  The  belief  that  this 
act  was  unpopular  in  Upper  Louisiana  is  unfounded  in  fact.  In 
the  eyes  of  the  French  better  classes  it  must  have  seemed  at 
the  time  the  ideal  type  of  government  for  this  territory.  It 
was  in  the  following  year,  after  Congress  had  passed  an  act 
annexing  Upper  Louisiana  to  Indiana  Territory,  that  these 
well-to-do  Frenchmen  petitioned  Congress  and  through  their 
representative,  Chouteau,  pleaded  with  President  Jefferson  for 
just  this  kind  of  government. 

Under  this  law  Captain  Amos  Stoddard  was  appointed  the 
first  American  civil  commandant  of  Upper  Louisiana.  The 
seat  of  government  remained  at  St.  Louis,  and  little  change  in 
governmental  administration  was  introduced.  This  w^as  in 
accordance  with  the  policy  of  the  Washington  officials,  who 
wisely  tried  to  pacify  the  fears  of  the  inhabitants.^^  Congress 
did  not  wait  long,  however,  in  making  provision  for  the  govern- 
ment of  Louisiana.  By  an  act  of  March  26,  1804,  Louisiana 
was  divided  into  two  districts  or  territories.  All  south  of  the 
thirty-third  degree  of  north  latitude  was  to  be  called  the  "ter-  \\ 
ritory  of  Orleans;"  and  all  north,  the  "district  of  Louisiana;"  • 
the  line  of  demarcation  being  the  present  southern  boundary  of 
Arkansas.  The  District  of  Louisiana  was  placed  under  the 
government  of  Indiana  Territory,  which  then  consisted  of  a 
Governor,  Secretary,  and  three  Judges.  The  Governor  and 
Judges  exercised  full  judicial,  legislative  and  executive  power 


^^  Stat,  at  Large,  II.  245;  Treaties  &  Conventions,  I.  508fl. 

12  Captain  Stoddard  had  instructions  that  "inasmuch  as  the  largest  portion 
of  the  old  inhabitants  were  strenuously  opposed  to  the  change  of  government, 
it  would  go  far  to  conciliate  them,  and  they  would  much  sooner  become  reconciled 
to  the  new  order  of  things,  by  making  little,  if  any  change  in  the  modus  operandi 
of  the  government,  at  least  for  a  time."  Billon,  Annals  of  St.  Louis,  1764-1804, 
p.  364. 


16  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

under  certain  general  restrictions.  They  were  specifically 
given  power  to  establish  inferior  courts  and  prescribe  their 
duties;  make  laws,  etc.,  except  those  abridging  religious  freedom 
or  those  contrary  to  the  laws  of  the  United  States;  and  it  was 
also  set  forth  that  criminal  trials  were  to  be  by  a  jury  of  twelve 
and  civil  trials  involving  amounts  over  SlOO  also  to  be  by  jury. 
The  judges  were  to  hold  two  annual  courts  in  the  district.  It 
was  provided,  among  other  things,  that  the  laws  in  force  in  the 
District  of  Louisiana  which  were  not  inconsistent  with  this 
act  were  to  remain  in  force  until  altered.  This  act  went  into 
effect  October  1,  1804,^^  and  excepting  the  attempted  legisla- 
tion bearing  on  the  "Missouri  Question"  Congress  never  passed 
an  act  which  applied  solely  to  Missouri  that  was  more  detested 
by  at  least  one-half  of  her  population  than  was  this  one.  It  is 
hardly  necessary  to  enter  into  a  discussion  of  the  laws  governing 
the  District  of  Louisiana  passed  by  the  Governors  and  Judges 
of  Indiana  Territory.  There  were  sixteen  acts  passed  in  all; 
however,  their  bearing  on  this  study  is  unimportant.^*  It  should 
be  stated  that  these  laws  were  well  suited  to  a  pioneer  com- 
munity like  Missouri,  and  no  criticism  of  them  is  found  in  any 
of  the  literature  of  that  day. 

From  the  very  beginning  of  Missouri's  connection  with  the 
United  States  there  has  never  existed  the  least  timidity  on  the 
part  of  the  people  of  this  State  to  make  known  to  the  nation 


'*  Stat,  at  large,  II.  283-289;  Mo.  Ter.  Laws,  pp.  5f. 

A  large  part  of  this  act  also  dealt  with  the  government  of  the  Territory  of 
Orleans.  The  inhabitants  of  Lower  Louisiana  included  in  the  new  "Territory 
of  Orleans"  were  equally  incensed  by  this  act.  They  drafted  a  memorial  protesting 
against  the  division  of  Louisiana  into  two  parts  and  the  lack  of  self-government. 
This  act  gave  the  "Territory  of  Orleans"  a  territorial  government  of  the  first  or 
lowest  grade.  This  petition  Is  said  to  have  been  signed  by  over  two  thousa  id 
heads  of  families  of  Louisiana.  It  was  entitled  a  "Kemonstrance  Of  The  People 
Of  Louisiana  Against  The  Political  System  Adopted  By  Congress  For  Them." 
and  was  communicated  to  the  Senate  December  31.  1804.  Am.  State  Papers, 
Misc.,  I.  396ff. 

This  petition  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  a  committee  appointed  by  the  House 
of  Representatives.  On  January  23,  1805,  the  committee  closed  its  reports  with 
a  resolution  "that  provision  ouglit  to  be  made  by  law  for  e.xtending  to  tlio  inhab- 
itants of  Louisiana  tho  riglit  of  self-government."  This  resolution  was  pa.ssed 
by  the  House  on  January  2.H.  IHO.').      .Xnnnls  of  Congress,  pp.  1014-21. 

To  this  same  committee  was  also  refi-rrcd  the  petition  of  tl»e  inhabitants  of 
the  "District  of  Louisiana."  which  will  next  be  discussed.      Ibid.,  p.  057. 

'«  C/.  al.so  Loeb.  op.  cit.,   I.  50-71. 


Constitutional  History  During  Territorial  Period.  17 

in  a  perfectly  constitutional  way  their  wants  and  grievances. 
The  legislation  of  Congress  in  1804  for  the  inhabitants  of  the 
District  of  Louisiana  was  received  with  the  greatest  disfavor 
west  of  the  Mississippi,  and  occasioned  the  first  of  a  long  series 
of  petitions  and  remonstrances  presented  to  Congress  by  the 
inhabitants  of  the  present  State  of  Missouri.  These  early  peti- 
tions are  characterized  by  temperate  language  and  a  tone  of 
positiveness  based  on  a  just  cause.  Although  at  the  time  of 
the  cession  there  was  no  considerable  open  dissatisfaction  or 
opposition,  in  less  than  six  months  after  that  the  discontent  was 
widespread.  The  people  of  Upper  Louisiana  did  not  like  the 
American  regime  with  its  numerous  officials,  tax  gatherers  and 
jury  system.  They  regarded  with  equal  disfavor  the  method 
provided  for  settling  the  Spanish  land  grants  ;^^  the  increased 
expenses  under  the  American  regime,  e.  g.,  taxes,  road  and  mili- 
tary service  without  compensation;  the  absence  of  all  repre- 
sentative government;  and  the  act  of  March  26,  1804,  in  whole. 
As  early  as  August  23,  1804,  Major  T.  W.  Waters  of  Cape 
Girardeau,  a  staunch  American  and  a  man  of  influence,  wrote 
President  Jefferson  that  a  petition  had  been  "drawn  up"  protesting 
against  parts  of  that  act  of  Congress.^^  On  September  29,  1804, 
two  days  before  the  act  of  Congress  of  March  26,  1804,  was  to 
take  effect,  a  "remonstrance  and  petition  of  the  representatives 
elected  by  the  freemen  of  the  districts  in  the  District  of  Louis- 
iana to  Congress"  was  drawn  up  and  signed  in  St.  Louis  by 
sixteen  deputies  from  the  five  subdivisions  now  included  in  the 
State  of  Missouri. ^^  The  sixteen  delegates  were  apportioned 
as  follows:  two  from  each  of  the  districts  of  New  Madrid, 
Cape  Girardeau,  and  Ste.  Genevieve;  six  from  St.  Louis  and 
"dependencies;"  and  four  from  St.  Charles  and  "dependencies." 
The  dissatisfaction  with  the  law  of  March  26,  1804,  was  based 
on  the  grievances  that  it  annexed  upper  Louisiana  to  Indiana 
Territory;  that  it  contained  no  provisions  granting  self-govern- 
ment; that  it  did  not  protect  and  secure  slavery  west  of  the 


1*  Stoddard,  op.  cit.,  p.  253. 
16  Houck,  Hist.  Mo.,  II.  385,  387f. 

»'  Am.  State  Papers,  Misc.,  I.  400flf.     This  petition  was  presented  to  Congress 
January  4,  1805. 

M  S— 2 


18  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

Mississippi  River;  that  it  proposed  settling  the  eastern  Indians 
on  Louisiana  soil;  and  that  section  fourteen  of  that  act,  the 
section  relating  to  the  Spanish  land  grants,  was  unjust  and  un- 
reasonable. This  last  grievance  was  beyond  question  the  most 
real  and  deeply  seated  of  all.  One  prominent  contemporary  of 
that  day  even  goes  so  far  as  to  state  that  the  annexation  of 
upper  Louisiana  to  Indiana  Territory  was  only  an  ostensible 
objection  to  the  law  of  1804,  and  that  the  real  ground  for  dis- 
satisfaction was  the  land  title  clause. ^^ 

This  interesting  petition  remonstrates  at  some  length 
against  the  division  of  the  Louisiana  Purchase  into  two  parts 
and  states  that  the  ceded  territory  if  left  as  one  whole  had 
sufficient  population  to  be  admitted  as  a  state;  that  the  North- 
west Ordinance  provided  for  the  admission  of  States  in  that 
district  which  had  a  population  of  sixty  thousand  and  that 
Ohio  when  admitted  did  not  have  more  than  from  thirty-three  to 
forty  thousand  free  inhabitants;  that  the  third  article  of  the  treaty 
of  cession  provided  that  the  inhabitants  of  Louisiana  were  to 
be  incorporated  into  the  United  States  as  soon  as  possible;  that 
if  Congress  could  divide  Louisiana  once,  she  could  subdivide 
indefinitely  whenever  the  population  became  sufficient  to  form  a 
state,  and  thus  would  Louisiana  be  always  oppressed.  This 
part  of  the  remonstrance  against  the  division  of  Louisiana  was 
followed  by  a  protest  against  the  form  of  government  provided 
for  the  "District  of  Louisiana."  The  delegates  seriously  ob- 
jected to  being  under  the  government  of  another  territory; 
being  under  a  governor  of  another  territory  who  did  not  reside 
or  hold  a  freehold  estate  in  the  District  of  Louisiana;  the  seat 
of  government  being  at  Vincennes,  which  was  one  hundred  and 
sixty-five  miles  over  impassable  roads  from  them,  and  the 
governor  sometimes  even  farther  distant;  the  laws  of  Indiana 
Territory  not  being  similar  to  those  of  Louisiana,  e,  g.,  slavery 
existed  in  Louisiana  and  was  prohibited  in  the  Northwest  Ter- 
ritory; and  to  the  absence  of  a  Congressional  law  on  slavery, 
which  might  make  the  inhabitants  of  the  District  of  Louisiana 
feel  that  perhaps  some  day  Congress  would  abolish  it,  even 
though  by  the  treaty  with  France  they  were  protected  in  their 


•  •Letter  of  Kufus  Euslon.  op.  cit. 


Constitutional  History  During  Territorial  Period.  19 

property.  In  short  they  objected  to  the  great  injustice  of  being 
under  Indiana  Territory;  but  they  also  objected,  and,  we  beHeve, 
in  a  more  serious  way,  to  the  fourteenth  section  of  the  act  of 
Congress  of  March  26,  1804,  which  declared  null  and  void  all 
Spanish  land  grants  made  subsequent  to  the  treaty  of  San  Ilde- 
fonso,  and  to  the  fifteenth  section  of  this  same  act  which  settled 
Indians  from  east  of  the  Mississippi  on  the  land  in  Louisiana 
District.  Further,  they  objected  to  the  use  of  the  inferior 
w^ord  "District"  as  applied  to  Louisiana  in  contradistinction  to 
"Territory"  as  applied  to  Indiana  and  Orleans. ^^  There  was 
really  much  righteous  wrath  on  the  part  of  the  Louisiana  in- 
habitants against  that  part  of  the  Act  of  Congress  which  pro- 
posed settling  the  Indians  from  the  country  east  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi in  this  district.  The  necessity  of  protecting  themselves 
against  the  Indians  already  west  of  the  Mississippi  imposed 
labors  and  hardships  on  those  pioneers.  Even  President  Jef- 
ferson, who,  we  think,  lacked  here  his  usual  foresight,  warmly 
favored  this  removal  of  the  savages.-^ 

The  delegates  then  asked  that  the  act  which  divided  Louis- 
iana into  two  territories  and  which  provided  a  temporary  govern- 
ment thereof,  be  repealed;  that  there  be  made  a  permanent 
division  of  Louisiana  legally;  that  the  Governor,  Secretary,  and 
Judges  of  Louisiana  District  be  appointed  by  the  President  and 
reside  and  hold  property  there;  that  the  above  officers  be  ap- 
pointed from  those  speaking  both  French  and  English;  that  the 
records  of  each  county  and  the  proceedings  of  the  courts  of  Louis- 
iana District  be  kept  in  both  French  and  English ;  that  Louisiana 
District  be  divided  into  five  counties  and  that  the  people  of 
each  county  elect  two  members  for  a  term  of  two  years  to  form 
with  the  Governor  a  Legislative  Council;  that  they  be  protected 
in  their  slaves  and  be  given  the  right  to  import  slaves.  They 
also  asked  that  Louisiana  District  be  permitted  to  send  a  dele- 
gate to  Congress  and  that  funds  be  apportioned  and  lands  set 


>5  Houck,  Hist.  Mo.,  II.  388. 

=  "  Jefferson's  Writings,  VIII.  249.  In  a  letter  to  Horatio  Gates  dated  July 
11,  1803,  speaking  of  Louisiana  Jefferson  writes:  "If  our  legislature  dispose  of 
it  with  the  wisdom  we  have  a  right  to  expect,  they  may  make  it  the  means  of 
tempting  all  our  Indians  on  the  East  side  of  the  Mississippi  to  remove  to  the 
West,  and  of  condensing  instead  of  scattering  our  population." 


20  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

apart  for  French  and  English  schools  in  each  county  and  also 
for  a  "seminary  of  learning."  And,  finally,  they  requested  that 
private  engagements  which  had  been  entered  into  during  the 
Spanish  rule  and  which  were  conformable  to  the  Spanish  law, 
be  maintained;  that  former  final  judgments  rendered  according 
to  the  Spanish  law,  should  not  be  reversed;  and  that  former 
judgments  which  had  been  rendered  under  the  Spanish  law  and 
which  according  to  it  were  appealable,  should  still  be  appeal- 
able to  the  proper  United  States  courts. 

This  petition  was  accompanied  by  a  declaration  of  "the 
Representatives  of  the  District  of  Louisiana,  in  General  Assembly 
met,"  signed  in  St.  Louis  September  30,  1804.  There  were 
fifteen  deputies  from  five  districts  and  from  Femme  Osage  in 
this  latter  meeting,  which  was  held  in  St.  Louis.  The  declaration 
was  signed  by  the  president  and  secretary  of  the  convention 
on  the  30th  and  the  authenticity  of  their  signatures  was  certi- 
fied by  Amos  Stoddard,  Captain  and  First  Civil  Commandant 
in  Upper  Louisiana,  who  added  "that  respect  ought  to  be  paid 
to  what  they  affirm."  ^^  The  declaration  of  the  fifteen  delegates 
of  Upper  Louisiana  simply  stated  that  "Mr.  Augustus  Chouteau" 
and  "Mr.  Eligius  Fromentin"  had  been  "unanimously  chosen" 
to  act  "as  the  deputies,  delegates,  and  agents,  general  and 
special,  for  the  inhabitants  of  Louisiana,  for  the  purpose  of 
presenting  to  the  honorable  the  Congress  of  the  United  States" 
the  "humble  petition"  aforesaid.  Of  the  sixteen  names  of  the 
delegates  attached  to  the  "petition,"  the  document  first  referred 
to  above,  thirteen  are  the  same  as  are  affixed  to  the  "declara- 
tion." There  was  also  a  slight  change  in  the  apportionment 
of  the  delegates  who  signed  the  "declaration:"  there  being  one 
each  from  New  Madrid  and  Femme  Osage;  four  from  Capo 
Girardeau;  two  from  Ste.  Genevieve;  four  from  St.  Louis  and 
dependencies;  and  three  from  St.  Charles  and  clejxMidencies.-^ 

This  memorial  or  petition  as  adopted  and  transmitted  to 
Congress  by  Augusle  Chouteau,   was  (juite  differrnt    from   the 


"  Am.  Slate  Papers.   Misc.,   I.  4()4r. 

"  Houck  givtis  llio  nam(^s  of  ciKhtcon  dologatcs  wlio  sinmul  the  ixMilion  dativl 
September  2*.),  1804.  This  authority  sorms  to  havo  (•oiiil)iiuMl  l\w  lutnics  of  all 
the  delegatCK  wlio  signed  tills  petition  with  the  two  new  n>(rnl)ers  who  signed  tho 
"declaration"  of  vSeptembcr  30,  1804.     (7.   Houck.  Hist.   Mo..   11.  ;{'.n. 


Constitutional  History  During  Territorial  Period.  21 

one  originally  prepared.  No  early  public  document  of  Missouri 
down  to  the  framing  of  Missouri's  first  constitution  in  1820 
and  the  Solemn  Public  Act  of  Missouri's  First  Legislature  in 
1821,  has  a  more  interesting  histor^^  than  this  one.  It  involved 
the  first  successful  wire-pulling  in  Missouri  history,  and  had  it 
not  been  for  an  unnamed  school-master,  might  have  resulted 
very  disastrously  for  Missouri.  The  inner  history  of  this 
remarkable  document  is  set  forth  in  a  letter  of  Rufus  Easton, 
dated  at  St.  Louis  January  17,  1805,  to  President  Jefferson.  He 
wrote  that  immediately  after  the  Act  of  Congress  of  1804  be- 
came known  in  Missouri,  about  twenty  of  the  inhabitants  of 
St.  Louis  assembled  with  a  view  to  appoint  a  committee  which 
was  to  call  a  convention  of  delegates  from  the  different  districts, 
and  that  this  convention  was  to  form  a  plan  of  government 
for  upper  Louisiana.^^  The  whole  affair  seems  to  have  been 
arranged  by  the  French  inhabitants,  as  no  American  was  in- 
vited, although  there  was  a  number  of  prominent  ones  here. 
It  was  so  slated  that  a  majority  of  the  delegates  to  be  selected 
was  to  be  of  the  French  interest  by  kaying  them  elected  by 
committees  who  in  turn  were  chosen  principally  by  French 
villages.  How  successfully  the'  plan  w^orked  is  evident  from 
the  result  of  the  election.  Of  the, sixteen  signers  of  the  "pe- 
tition," seven  were  Americans  and  nine  Frenchmen;  and  of  the 
total  eighteen  signers  of  both  documents,  nine  were  Americans 
and  nine  Frenchmen.  The  name  of  Stephen  Byrd,  who  was  a 
delegate  to  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1820,  appears  in 
the  "declaration"  as  a  delegate  from  Cape  Girardeau.  Eligius 
Fromentin,  one  of  the  delegates  from  New  Madrid,  seems  to 
have  been  the  framer  of  the  "petition,"  as  he  is  credited  with 
being  the  most  learned.  In  1812  this  man  was  one  of  the  first 
United  States  Senators-  from  the  State  of  Louisiana.  Prac- 
tically all  the  French  and  American  delegates  were  men  of 
wealth  and  held  large  land  tracts,  and  this  placed  them  in  perfect 
accord  regarding  the  Spanish  land  grants.^^ 


"  Op.  cit.  Easton  said  that  these  twenty  inhabitants  met  on  April  2,  1804, 
to  peruse  the  bill  of  Congress  of  March  26.  The  date  of  this  meeting,  as  given, 
may  be  correct,  but,  if  so,  it  was  the  proposed  bill  that  was  perused,  since  the 
law  of  March  26  could  not  have  reached  St.  Louis  by  April  2. 

'-*  Houck,  Hist.  Mo.,  II.  39ff. 


22  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

The  original  petition  drafted  by  this  convention  recom- 
mended in  reality  a  "gouvernement  militaire."  It  provided 
that  they  have  a  Governor  residing  in  the  territory  possessing 
both  civil  and  military  jurisdiction;  that  there  be  Commandants 
for  each  district  possessing  like  powers,  with  an  appeal  to  the 
Governor  in  certain  cases;  that  there  be  no  trials  by  jury  "except 
in  such  cases  as  in  the  opinion  of  the  Governor  or  Commodant 
justice  should  absolutely  require  it  for  special  cause  to  be 
shown;"  and  that  the  practice  of  lawyers  be  entirely  prohibited. 
It  compared  the  Governor  and  Judges  of  the  Indiana  Territory 
to  "foreign  Bashaws — to  Pro-praetors  and  Pro-Consuls  under 
the  more  modest  name  of  Governor  and  judges  sent  here  to 
rule  over  the  people  and  to  write  liberty  as  had  been  done  in 
Venice  upon  our  prison  walls — ;"  and  declared  that  the  treaty 
of  cession  had  been  broken;  and  "a  motion  was  made  by  one  of 
the  members  to  call  upon  the  Emperor  of  France  thro'  his 
Ministers  to  enforce  a  fuUfillment." 

This  draft  of  the  petition  was  presented  to  Captain  Stoddard, 
who  made  several  slight  changes  in  it  so  as  to  obtain  for  it  a 
reading  in  Congress.  It  was  then  again  considered  by  the 
convention  and  singularly  failed  to  pass.  Easton  gives  the  fol- 
lowing reason  for  this  failure:  "But  for  a  person  who  resided 
some  years  within  the  United  States  in  character  of  a  school- 
master who  understands  the  French  language,  catching  at  the 
popular  declamation  of  some  members  of  Congress — Governed 
by  the  principles  advanced  in  the  memorial  of  Orleans  and 
fired  with  ambition  to  distinguish  himself  in  the  political  world 
this  original  plan  would  not  have  been  changed — The  flame  of 
his  eloquence  and  unparallelled  knowledge  of  American  politics 
changed  the  tone  to  the  whole  system  and  the  plan  was  to  ridi- 
cule the  Majority  of  Congress  for  their  professiofis  of  Repub- 
licanism and  boasted  love  of  liberty — ."  -'^ 

After  the  petition  had  been  changed  to  its  present  and  final 
form,  it  was  entrusted  to  Chouteau  to  take  to  Washington. 
There  is  little  doubt  that  the  wealthy  French  inhabitants  fav- 


»  Easton's  Letter,  np.  cit.  Cf.  also  F()rtU>r,  Ilist.  La..  III.  l()f..  and  Am.  State 
Papers.   Afisc,   I.  .'V.Miir. 

After  careful  searching  we  have  been  iinabli'  (o  asc(<r(aiii  wlio  this  iiniciuo 
school-master  was. 


Constitutional  History  During  Territorial  Period.  23 

ored  a  military  government  without  civil  law  and  lawyers. 
Chouteau  had  presented  his  views  for  such  a  government  to 
Gallatin  during  the  previous  summer  of  1804,  when  many  of 
the  leading  Frenchmen  of  Louisiana  District  were  in  Washington. 
Gallatin  wrote  to  President  Jefferson  regarding  this  interview 
with  Chouteau,  and  stated,  that  while  he  respected  the  zeal  and 
ability  of  the  Frenchman,  he  did  not  endorse  his  views  and  those 
of  his  business  associates.  It  is  by  no  means  improbable  that 
when  Chouteau  carried  this  democratic  petition  of  September, 
1804,  to  Washington,  he  still  pleaded  for  the  military  system. 
The  democratic  ideals  of  Jefferson,  however,  made  this  plea 
a  vain  one,  and  nothing  more  was  heard  of  the  "gouvernement 
militaire."  ^^ 


"  Houck,  Hist.  Mo.,  II.  400. 

The  following  valuable  letter  is  copied  from  note  No.  163,  p.  355,  vol.  II., 
of  Robinson,  Louisiana,  1785-1807:  "The  following  extract  from  a  letter  (en- 
titled Separate  observations")  dated  St.  Louis,  November  4,  1804  (conserved  in 
the  Bureau  of  Rolls  and  Library,  Department  of  State.  Territorial  Papers,  vol. 
I.,  "Louisiana"),  shows  conditions  in  Upper  Louisiana  or  Louisiana  Territory: 

"I  conceive  it  may  not  be  improper  to  mention  some  circumstances  con- 
cerning the  Petition  from  the  Committee  held  in  September  last  at  this  Place, 
before  my  arrival,  for  tho'  I  have  not  read  that  Memorial  I  have  heard  it  much 
spoken  of,  and  I  have  reason  to  think  a  Paper,  said  to  be  a  copy  of  it,  may  have 
been  sent  to  the  public  printer  for  insertion,  in  which  case  it  will  be  found  different 
from  the  original,  that  pretended  having  been  taken  from  the  first  draft  of  it  before 
its  ultimate  correction.  It  seems  the  act  of  Congress  of  March  last  concerning 
Louisiana  created  some  discontent  in  the  minds  of  People  here,  they  wished  and 
expected  a  Government  of  tlieir  own.  It  hurt  their  pride  to  be  made  dependent 
on  Indiana  for  officers  and  Laws,  because  their  population  and  territory  are  much 
more  extensive  than  those  of  their  neighbors.  They  conceived  the  act  of  Congress 
infringed  some  of  the  Rights  insured  to  them  by  the  Treaty,  placing  them  in  a 
more  degraded  situation  than  other  territories  of  the  United  States.  They 
formed  a  Convention  in  which  a  Committee  was  chosen  to  draw  up  a  Petition 
to  Congress.  The  Member  who  made  the  sketch  of  the  Memorial  was  sent  out 
before  my  arrival  and  I  have  not  seen  him,  but  I  am  told  he  is  a  man  of  warm 
passions  and  I  conceive  him  to  be  probably  of  a  character  such  as  I  have  known 
in  the  French  Revolution,  who  allowed  their  exalted  ideas  to  run  away  with  their 
understanding  and  could  not  distinguish  between  the  true  principles  of  liberty, 
and  those  leading  to  Anarchy  and  despotism  ...  I  have  a  particular  satisfaction 
at  the  time  in  saying  that  the  inhabitants  are  much  pleased  with  Govr.  Harrison 
now  here.  His  affability  and  easy  access  form  a  strong  contrast  with  what  they 
had  been  accustomed  to — all  the  disinterested  sensible  men  among  them  are  glad 
of  the  change  of  Government,  but  there  are  some,  as  you  will  easily  believe  who 
have  prejudices  which  time  and  experience  will  wipe  away — there  are  others  who 
enjoyed,  or  were  directly  concerned  in,  extensive  privileges,  or  had  certain  ad- 
vantages which  attached  them  to  the  former  system.  I  am  speaking  of  the  French 
part  of  the  inhabitants,  whose  sentiments  I  know  best  by  their  considering  me  as 
one  of  themselves  on  account  of  the  language  and  my  very  long  residence  in 
France.     The  appearance  of  hostilities — an  idea  many  of  them  have  of  this  part 


24  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

Within  two  months  after  this  first  petition  had  been  pre- 
sented to  Congress,  an  act  was  passed  on  March  3,  1805,  whick 
remedied  most  of  the  objections  and  granted  some  of  the  r^ 
quests  set  forth  by  the  St.  Louis  convention  of  September, 
1804.2^  It  was  rather  satisfactory  to  the  French  inhabitants, 
as  it  estabHshed  a  separate  centraHzed  form  of  government. 
The  act  provided :  (1)  that  the  "District  of  Louisiana"  be  changed 
to  the  "Territory  of  Louisiana;"  (2)  that  this  territory  be  sep- 
arated from  the  government  of  Indiana  territory;  and  (3)  that 
a  new  government  of  the  Territory  of  Louisiana  be  estabHshed. 
As  Missouri  by  this  act  became  a  territory  of  the  lowest  grade 
and  from  this  stage  gradually  advanced  to  statehood,  it  is  a 
matter  of  importance  to  notice  the  plan  of  government  out- 
lined by  this  second  organic  act  of  Congress  relating  to  Mis- 
souri. 

The  executive  power  was  lodged  in  the  hands  of  the  Gov- 
ernor, whose  tenure  was  appointive  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  whose  term  was  three  years,  and  who  must 
reside  in  the  territory.  His  powers  were  wide,  being  both 
executive  and  legislative  in  their  scope.  He  was  commander 
of  the  militia,  superintendent  ex-officio  of  Indian  affairs,  had  the 
power  of  appointment  and  command  of  all  officers  in  militia 
below  the  rank  of  general  officers,  could  grant  pardons  and 
reprieves  under  certain  limitations,  could  divide  the  territory 
into  districts  where  the  Indian  titles  were  extinct,  and  appoint 
magistrates  for  civil  and  military  purposes.  Associated  with 
the  Governor  was  a  Secretary,  whose  duties  were  clerical,  and 
who  became  governor  when  that  office  was  vacant.     His  term 


of  the  country  being  about  to  be  receded  to  that  nation  for  the  Fioridas,  are  topit-.. 
often  brought  forward  which  have  tended  to  show  me  the  real  inclinations  of 
some  and  they  open  their  minds  with  less  reserve  by  not  considering  nie  in  the 
light  of  a  stranger." — Letter  unsigned — "From  a  man  who  went  up  Mississippi 
to  become  acquaintcnl  with  I'eltry  trade." 

The  dislike  of  lawyi^rs  on  the  i)art  of  the  French  inhabitants  is  also  sttii  in 
the  Historical  and  Political  Refhictions  on  Louisiana  by  I'aiil  AUiot.  (Uoi)ert.sou. 
op.  cil.,  I.  i:J5,  i:i7.)  Speaking  of  St.  Louis  tluit  physician  says: — "The  inagis 
trate  who  r((nders  justice  does  not  molest  or  persecute  any  citiz«'n.  lie  is  a  fatiur 
whose  entrails  are  at  all  times  open  to  his  children."  "None  of  those  blood- 
suckers known  under  the  names  of  baililfs.  lawyers,  and  solicitors  are  scon  there." 
(This  was  written  ijefore  the  transfer  in   1803.)    (C/.  ibid.,    li.    :il9.) 

*^  Slat,    at   Large,    IL    .'l.'Hf.      Passed    at   second    session  of    Eighth    Congress, 
March  3,  1805.  and  went  into  effect  July  1.   1805. 


Constitutional  History  During  Territorial  Period.  25 

was  four  years,  and  he  was  also  required  to  live  in  the  territory. 
Has  tenure  was  the  same  as  that  of  the  Governor. 
mt  The  legislative  power  was  vested  in  the  Governor  and  the 
three  territorial  Judges,  or  a  majority  of  them.  This  body 
or  Legislative  Council  had  power  to  establish  inferior  tribunals 
and  prescribe  their  duties.  It  was  empowered  to  make  all 
laws  conducive  to  the  good  government  of  the  inhabitants  of 
the  territory  provided  no  law  should  be  enacted  inconsistent 
with  the  Constitution  and  Laws  of  the  United  States  or  abridg- 
ing the  religious  freedom  of  the  inhabitants  or  dispensing  with 
trial  by  jury  in  both  civil  and  criminal  cases  under  certain 
regulations.  All  laws  passed  by  this  council  were  subject  to 
the  ratification  of  the  President  and  Congress. 

The  judicial  power  was  vested  in  three  Judges  appointed 
by  the^President  for  four  years,  and  in  such  inferior  tribunals 
as  might  be  established  by  the  Legislative  Council.  The  three 
Judges  or  any  two  of  them  were  to  hold  two  courts  annually 
in  the  Territory  and  to  have  the  same  jurisdiction  as  that 
formerly  held  by  the  Judges  of  Indiana  Territory. 

The  compensation  for  the  five  foregoing  officers  was  the 
same  as  obtained  in  Indiana  Territory.  All  were  required  to 
take  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  United  States.  It  was  ex- 
pressly provided  that  all  existing  laws  were  to  remain  in  force 
until  modified. 

Such  are  the  general  provisions  of  this  act.  It  did  much 
to  mollify  the  inhabitants  of  Upper  Louisiana,  and,  although 
not  granting  them  the  elective  tenure  nor  a  delegate  in  Con- 
gress, it  was  far  more  satisfactory  than  the  previous  act. 
They  now  had  a  territory  and  a  government  that  were  not 
united  to  or  under  any  other  subdivision  of  the  United  States, 
and,  although  their  new  officials  were  appointed  in  Washing- 
ton, and  subject  in  every  express  way  to  the  national  govern- 
ment, still  they  were  required  to  reside  in  the  territory,  and  this 
alone  was  worth  a  great  deal  to  the  inhabitants  of  a  pioneer 
country  where  distance  played  such  an  important  part  in  law 
administration. 

During  the  following  half  decade  the  Territory  of  Louis- 
iana made  rapid  strides  in  development.     The  increase  of  popu- 


26  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

lation  alone  justified  a  change  in  the  governmental  machinery 
provided  for  by  the  act  of  1805.  The  population  of  the  terri- 
tory in  1810  had  risen  to  19,976,  being  distributed  among  the 
five  districts  as  follows:  Cape  Girardeau,  3,888;  New  Madrid, 
2,296;  St.  Charles,  3,505;  Ste.  Genevieve,  4,620;  and  St.  Louis, 
5,667.^^  This  remarkable  growth  in  population  naturally 
created  a  desire  for  a  higher  grade  of  territorial  government. 
It  was  the  wish  of  a  large  majority  of  inhabitants  of  this  terri- 
tory that  the  American  policy  of  self-government  be  applied 
to  them.  This  wish  was  soon  revealed  in  the  numerous  peti- 
tions presented  to  Congress  on  that  subject.  Never  in  the 
history  of  Missouri,  during  neither  the  French,  Spanish,  Ameri- 
can, Territorial,  nor  State  Period,  have  her  inhabitants  framed, 
signed,  and  presented  so  many  petitions  to  Congress  as  issued 
from  the  Territory  of  Louisiana  from  1810  to  1812  inclusive. 
But,  to  us  even  this  seems  less  remarkable  than  is  the  failure 
heretofore  of  every  writer  on  Missouri  history  to  notice  a  single 
petition  of  that  time.  This  silence  can  be  construed  only  as 
the  result  of  a  lack  of  information,  since  the  greatest  importance 
always  attaches  to  those  documents  that  reflect  the  sentiment 
of  so  large  a  district  of  people  in  regard  to  a  change  in  their 
organic  law.  At  least  fifteen  of  these  petitions  appeared,  twelve 
of  which  are  still  in  existence.  These  twelve  requested  that  the 
Territory  of  Louisiana  be  raised  from  a  territory  of  the  first  to 
one  of  the  second  grade.  One  of  the  other  petitions,  very 
significantly,  prayed  that  no  alteration  be  piade  in  the  form  of 
government."^ 


»»  U.  S.  Census,  1900.  Pop.,  I.  27f. 

2»  Six  hundred  and  thirty-six  signatures  are  attached  to  five  of  these  petitions, 
the  number  of  signatures  on  the  other  seven  petitions  were  not  counted.  Tliose 
petitions  were  first  noticed  by  us  in  the  Annals  of  Congress.  We  had  always 
wondered  at  the  silence  of  Missouri  historians  on  this  point,  and  could  hardly 
be  convinced  that  Missouri  became  a  territory  of  the  second  grade  without  there 
having  been  an  application  for  same  on  the  part  of  the  inhabitants  of  Louisiana 
Territory.  An  examination  of  the  Annals  proved  our  conclusion  to  be  correct. 
Mr.  Parker's  Calendar  of  Papers  in  Washinijton  Archives  relating  h)  the  Territories 
of  the  United  States  (('arncgie  Institution,  1911)  showed  that  tlu's»^  petitions  were 
still  in  existence.  Finally,  after  having  made  futile  application  to  the  House 
Librarian  we  interested  Dr.  J.  Franklin  Jameson  who  at  our  recjuest  placed  Dr. 
N.  D.  Meroness  on  the  trial  of  these  documents.  Dr.  Merene.ss  not  only  located 
all  of  these  petitions  but  also  made  copies  of  same.  Tliese  copies  are  now  in  the 
library  of  The  State  Hist.  Soc.  of  Mo.  The  original  docunu-nts  are  still  preserved 
in  the  Housi!  Files  in   Washington,   D.  C 


Constitutional  History  During  Territorial  Period.  27 

On  January  6,  1810,  there  was  presented  to  Congress  "a 
petition  of  sundry  inhabitants  of  the  Territory  of  Louisiana, 
praying  that  the  second  grade  of  Territorial  Government  may 
be  estabUshed  in  said  Territory."  This  was  probably  one  of 
the  first  of  these  petitions  and,  we  think,  was  drawn  up  and 
signed  in  1809.  It  based  its  request  for  a  higher  grade  of 
territorial  government  on  the  treaty  of  cession,  on  the  unsatis- 
factory exercise  of  both  legislative  and  judicial  powers  when 
vested  in  the  same  persons,  and  on  the  large  size  of  the  militia 
in  the  Territory  of  Louisiana  compared  with  the  militia  in  either 
Indiana  or  Mississippi  territories.  This  petition  was  referred 
to  a  committee  on  January  9,  1810,  which  reported,  on  January 
22d,  a  bill  "further  to  provide  for  the  government  of  the  Territory 
of  Louisiana."  This  bill  after  its  second  reading  was  referred 
to  the  Committee  of  the  whole,  in  which  it  was  not  brought  up 
during  that  session.^^     On  January  15,  1810,  an  exact  copy  of 


*o  Annals  of  Congress,  I.  1157,  1253.  Following  is  a  copy  of  this  petition 
as  found  in  the  House  Files  by  Dr.  Mereness: 

[Dec.  1809?]  Petition  of  sundry  inhabitants  of  the  territory  of  Louisiana — 
Referred  Jan.  9th,  1810.     [No.  3458  in  Parker.] 

[This  petition  is  as  follows:]  To  the  honble  the  Sen.  and  Ho.  of  Reps,  of  the 
U.  S.,  in  Cong,  assembled 

The  petition  of  the  undersigned  inhabitants  of  the  Territory  of  La.,  most 
respectfully,  sheweth. 

That  they  have  waited  with  anxious  but  silent  expectation  for  the  arrival 
of  that  period,  when  pursuance  of  the  treaty  by  which  Louisiana  was  ceded  to 
the  United  States,  they  are  to  be  admitted  "according  to  the  principles  of  the 
federal  constitution,  to  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  rights,  advantages  and  immunities 
of  Citizens  of  the  United  States."  These  rights  they  do  humbly  conceive  cannot 
be  enjoyed  while  the  judicial  and  legislative  powers  are  vested  in  the  same  persons. 
Where  powers  are  combined  which  the  constitution  requires  should  be  seperate, 
[sic]  and  where  the  maker  of  laws,  is  also  obliged  to  expound,  and  to  decide  upon 
them.  Your  petitioners  are  fully  impressed  with  the  idea  that  legislative  powers, 
are  never  better,  nor  more  satisfactorily  exercised  than  when  committed  to  those 
persons  who  are  elected  for  that  purpose  by  the  people  themselves,  whose  con- 
duct must  be  regulated  by  those  very  laws  thus  made.  The  inhabitants  of  the 
territory  of  Orleans,  have  already  obtained  those  rights  which  your  petitioners 
now  ask,  and  to  which  they  deem  themselves  also  entitled.  The  last  returns  of 
the  militia  of  this  territory  will  be  found  to  exceed  those  of  the  Indiana  and 
Mississippi  territory,  and  the  number  is  daily  increased  by  rapid  emigrations 
to  this  territory.  Confiding  therefore,  in  the  justice  and  wisdom  of  your  honble 
bodies,  they  most  respectfully  ask,  that  a  law  may  be  passed  for  enabling  the  in- 
habitants of  this  territory  to  have  and  enjoy  the  rights  and  privileges  consequent 
upon  a  second  grade  of  terZ  gov't,  and  that  the  same  may  be  established  in  this 
territory. 

And  your  petitrs  as  in  duty  bound  will  ever  pray.  [This  petitn  is  printed] 
[76  signatures] 


28  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

the  foregoing  petition  was  referred  in  the  House.  This  latter 
document  had  attached  to  it  about  two  hundred  and  seventy- 
three  signatures,  the  former  had  seventy-six.^^  On  February-  22, 
1810,  several  petitions  to  Congress  "from  a  number  of  the  in- 
habitants of  the  Territory  of  Louisiana"  were  presented  to  the 
Senate.  Their  purpose  and  wording  were,  we  infer,  the  same 
as  the  other  two  presented  to  the  House. ^-  Another  duphcate 
petition,  of  this  year,  bearing  only  nine  signatures  was  pre- 
sented to  the  House,^^  but  nothing  was  accomplished  by  any 
of  these  at  this  time. 

At  the  third  session  of  the  Eleventh  Congress,  on  January 
3,  1811,  a  committee,  appointed  by  the  House  on  December  11, 
1810,  "presented  a  bill  further  providing  for  the  government  of 
the  Territory  of  Louisiana."  After  a  second  reading  the  bill 
was  lost  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  and  this  Congress 
expired  without  passing  an  act  on  this  matter.^"* 

During  the  summer  of  1811  numerous  petitions  of  this 
kind  were  framed  and  signed  in  Louisiana  Territory.  Some  of 
these  originated  in  the  Arkansas  country  and  others  in  that 
part  that  lies  within  the  present  boundaries  of  Missouri.  They 
were  all  similar  in  tone  and  argument  to  the  1810  petitions. 
The  desire  for  a  second  grade  of  territorial  government  was 
strong,  and  this  wish  was  strengthened  by  the  still  unsettled  or 
unsatisfactorily  settled  condition  of  the  land  claims.  The  in- 
habitants of  Louisiana  Territory  not  only  wanted  a  voice  in 
their  territorial  or  local  government,  but  were  equally  desirous 
of  having  their  wishes  voiced  in  Congress  by  a  regularly  elected 
territorial  delegate.^^     Not  only  were  many  of  these  petitions 


"  Ibid.     Found  in  House  Files. 

«  Ibid,  p.  578. 

"  Ibid.     Found  in  House  Files. 

**  Annals  uj  Conqress,  3d  Sess.,  llth  Cong.  (1810-11).  p.  486. 

"Sometime  during  the  session  of  1811-12  five  petitions  wore  presented  to 
the  House.      Each  of  tiie  live  is  as  follows  according  to  Dr.  N.  D.  Mereness: 

[Referred  1811-12.]  Each  of  the  "live  petitions"  listed  by  Tarker  under 
No.  3408  is  in  part  as  follows:  To  the  Honble  the  sen.  &  Ho  of  Heps — Sheweth; 
That  convinced  as  w(>ll  of  tludr  riglits  in  pursuance  of  the  treaty  which  ceded  La. 
to  the  U.  H.,  to  be  admitted  "according  to  the  principles  of  the  federal  constitu- 
tion, to  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  riglits.  advantages  aiid  immunities  of  the  citizens 
of  the  United  States,"  as  of  the  advantages  resulting  from  representative  govern- 
ment, which  rights  and  advantages  have  not  been  extended  to  them.  They  hope 
indeed,  that  as  a  free  people,  so  far  as  the  policy  of  territorial  govt-rnment   will 


Constitutional  History  During  Territorial  Period.  29 

presented  to  the  twelfth  Congress  at  its  first  session  but  on 
December  27,  1811,  there  was  also  presented  to  the  House  "a 
certified  copy  of  a  presentment  by  the  grand  jury  of  the  'District 
of  St.  Charles,'  in  said  Territory,  representing  that  the  second 
grade  of  Territorial  government  ought  to  be  extended  to  the 
Territory;  that  the  judges  of  the  general  court  ought  to  reside 
in    the   Territory;   and    that   further   and   equitable   provisions 


admit,  they  may  have  a  partial  voice  in  the  government  which  they  support. 
Their  sister  territories  of  Orleans,  Mississippi  and  Indiana,  are  fast  approaching 
to  political  manhood,  under  the  fostering  hand  of  the  General  Government; 
while  La.  with  a  large  and  fast  increasing  population  have  not  been  admitted  to 
the  enjoyment  of  the  same  political  blessings;  all  the  powers  of  the  government, 
as  well  executive  and  legislative,  as  legislative  and  judicial,  are  blended  together, 
not  only  contrary  to  the  treaty  and  ''Federal  Constitution,"  but  also  the  political 
safety  and  happiness  of  the  people.  A  large  majority  of  your  petitioners  depend 
on  agriculture  for  support,  whose  claims  to  land  form  the  principal  hope  of  them- 
selves and  families,  and  more  than  two-thirds  of  their  claims  have  been  rejected 
by  the  board  of  commissrs;  from  whose  official  representations  they  have  little 
to  hope,  and  much  prejudice  to  fear;  for  these  reasons  which  are  all  important 
to  your  petitioners,  they  now  most  respectfully  ask  of  your  honble  body  the 
passage  of  a  law.  which  will  admit  them  into  what  is  denominated  the  second 
grade  of  territorial  govt,  (provided  no  better  can  be  devised)  which  entitle  them 
to  a  delegate  in  Congress  by  whom  they  can  make  known  their  unfortunate  sit- 
uation. And  yoiH-  petitioners  as  in  duty  bound  will  ever  pray.  [Found  in  House 
Files.] 

Another  petition  referred  December  27,  1811,  is  an  exact  copy  of  the  above 
(House  Files,  Parker,  op.  cit..  No.  3480.);  another  duplicate  was  read  January 
6,  1812,  (Senate  Files.  Parker,  op.  cit..  No.  3481.);  and  another  bearing  one  hundred 
and  ninety  signatures  was  also  presented  to  Congress.  (House  Files,  Parker,  op. 
cit.,  Xo.  3487.)  The  following  petition,  dated  Arkansas,  9th  Sept.  1811,  was 
referred  Dec.   7,   1811: — 

Petition  (dated  Arkansas,  9th  Septr  1811)  for  the  Second  grade  of  Govern- 
ment.— No.  3472  in  Parker — Referred  Dec.  7,  1811  to  Comee  of  the  whole  House 
on  the  bill  for  the  Govt  of  said  Territory.  Bill  postponed  in  the  Senate  April 
22,  1812. 

This  petitn  is  as  follows:  To  the  Honble — The  Petition  of  the  undersigned 
inhabitants  of  the  Territory  of  La.  Respectfully  sheweth:  That  convinced  as 
well  of  their  rights  (in  pursuance  of  the  Treaty  wnich  ceded  La.  [sic]  to  th[e] 
U.  S.)  to  be  admitted  according  to  the  Principals  of  the  Federal  Constitution  to 
the  enjoyment  of  all  the  rights,  advantages,  and  immunities  of  Citizens  [o]f  the 
U.  S. — as  of  the  advantages  resulting  from  a  representative  Gov't,  which  Rights 
and  Advantages  have  not  been  extended  to  them — they  hope  indeed  that  as  a 
free  People  so  far  as  the  Policy  of  Terl  Gov't  will  admit  they  may  have  a  Partial 
Voice  in  the  Govt  wch  [which]  they  support.  Their  sister  Territories  of  Orleans, 
Mississippi  and  Indiana  are  fast  approaching  to  Political  Manhood,  under  the 
Fostering  hand  of  the  Gen'l  Gov't,  while  La.  with  a  large  and  fast  increasing 
Population,  has  not  been  admitted  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  same  Political  blessing. 
— all  the  Powers  of  the  Gov't  as  well  Executive  and  legislative,  as  Legislative  and 
Judicial  are  blended  together  not  only  Contrary  to  the  Treaty  and  Federal  Con- 
stitution but  also  to  the  political  safety  and  happiness  of  the  People. 

A  large  majority  of  yoiu*  Petitioners  depend  on  Agriculttu'e  for  support 
whose  claims  to  lands  form  the  Principal  hope  of  themselves  and  families  and  more 


30  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

ought  to  be  made  in  favor  of  rejected  land  claims."  ^^  These 
were  referred  and  undoubtedly  were  of  the  greatest  influence  in 
the  final  passage  of  the  law  of  June  4,  1812. 

Although  the  local  pressure  on  Congress  favoring  a  higher 
grade  of  territorial  government  in  Louisiana  Territory  was 
strong,  we  are  hardly  surprised  to  discover  some  undercurrent 
of  opinion  in  this  district  that  opposed  raising  the  status  of 
the  territory.  We  have  noticed  how  the  act  of  1805  was  satis- 
factory to  most  of  the  inhabitants  of  Upper  Louisiana  especially 
to  the  French  portion,  and  also  why  they  preferred  a  centralized 
form  of  government.  Wherever  the  French  influence  was  strong 
whether  in  Indiana  Territory,  Louisiana  Territory,  or  the  Terri- 
tory of  Orleans,  the  preference  of  that  race  has  been  for  few 
officials,  concentration  of  power  in  the  hands  of  a  few,  and  either 
an  indifiference  or  opposition  to  self-government  unless  some 
vital  problem  could  be  solved  by  no  other  means."  In  Louis- 
iana Territory  the  special  problem  that  concerned  many,  includ- 
ing both  French  and  American  inhabitants,  was  the  land  claim 
or  land  grant  problem.  Many  claims  had  not  been  settled 
and  many  had  been  refused.  The  settlers,  both  old  and  new, 
thought  that  more  lenient  laws  regulating  these  claims  would  be 
passed  if  only  the  Territory  had  a  Delegate  in  Congress.  There 
was  also  a  sincere,  strong  sentiment  for  self-government  in 
Louisiana  Territory,  but  we  believe  that  the  opposition  to  this 
self-government  or  representative  government  would  have  been 


than  two  thirds  [o]f  their  just  Claims  have  been  rejected  by  th(el  board  of  Com- 
missioners from  whose  official  Representations  they  have  little  to  hope. 

For  these  reasons  wch  are  all  important  to  your  Petitioners  they  now  most 
respectfully  ask  of  your  Hon&/e  body,  the  Passaj^e  of  a  Law  wch  will  admit  them 
into  what  is  denominated  the  second  grade  of  Ter/  C.ovt,  wch  will  entitle  them  to 
a  delegate  in  Cong,  by  whom  they  may  make  known  their  unfortunate  situation— 
and  your  Petitrs  as  in  duty  bound  will  ever  Pray.  (88  signatures.  The  original 
of  this  petitn  is  not  printed.     Found  in  House  Files  J 

C/.  also  Annals  of  Congress,  p.  557. 

»•  Annals  of  Congress,  I.  58Jij. 

»» Indiana  Territory  in  1800  was  largely  French.  They  cared  nothing  for 
self-governm(!nt.  The  Influx  of  American  settlers  createtl  a  desire  for  a  higher 
grade  of  territorial  goviTiimeiK.  The  French  joined  in  this  <l(>manil  for  self- 
government  since  through  it  they  could  nuike  slavery  mon<  secure,  which  was  a 
great  obj(K-t  to  be  attained  owing  to  tlie  provisions  of  tlie  Northwest  Orilinance 
on  that  point.  C/.  also  Webster,  Ilonu'r  .1.,  Willioin  Jlctny  Jliirrisou's  Ailtnin- 
islration  oj  Indiana  Territory,  in  Jnd.  Ilisl.  Soc.  rub.,  IV.  2()2ir.  Cf.  Chapter 
VI  of  this  work  on  the  pt^culiar  sentiment  (>.\hil)iti(l  in  Orleans  Territory  on  the 
eve  of  framing  a  State  Constitution. 


Constitutional  History  During  Territorial  Period.  31 

stronger  than  it  was  had  not  there  been  pressing  for  settle- 
ment hundreds  of  land  claims.  At  all  events  we  have  record  of 
one  remonstrance  and  petition  being  presented  to  Congress  that 
opposed  a  change  in  government.  On  December  7,  1811,  there 
was  presented  to  the  House  a  remonstrance  and  petition  of 
sundry  inhabitants  of  St.  Louis  "stating  the  many  injuries  and 
inconveniences  which  would  result  from  a  change  in  their  form 
of  government,  and  praying  that  no  alteration  may  be  made 
in  their  said  form  of  government."  ^^  This  was  referred  to  a 
committee  from  which  it  was  never  reported.  The  demand  of 
the  inhabitants  of  Louisiana  for  the  higher  grade  of  territorial 
government  had  become  too  insistent  for  Congress  to  longer 
delay. 

In  the  year  1812  affairs  reached  a  focus  that  made  neces- 
sary at  least  some  kind  of  action.  The  Territory  of  Orleans 
was  admitted  into  the  Union  April  8,  1812,  under  the  name  of 
the  State  of  Louisiana.  This  made  expedient,  though  not  es- 
sential, as  some  authorities  have  supposed,  a  change  in  name  of 
the  Territory  of  Louisiana.  Action  was  taken  by  Congress, 
and  on  June  4,  1812,  a  law  was  passed  changing  the  name  of 
the  Territory  of  Louisiana  to  the  Territory  of  Missouri.^^  It 
was  this  law  which  gave  to  Missouri  her  present  name;  and  it 
is  very  probable  that  had  the  Territory  of  Orleans  taken  the 
name  of  State  of  Orleans  on  its  admission  into  the  Union,  then 
the  Territory  of  Louisiana  would  have  retained  its  name  and 
in  1821  would  have  been  admitted  as  the  State  of  Louisiana. 
This  act  of  June  4,  1812,  raised  Missouri  to  the  second  grade  of 
territories  and  not  only  gave  the  inhabitants  control  of  the 
lower  house  of  the  Legislature  through  the  elective  tenure  and 
the  election  of  a  Delegate  to  Congress  but  also  provided  in 
section  fourteen  for  a  bill  of  rights.^^ 

The  government  provided  for  by  this  act  was  more  com- 
plex in  character  that  that  in  the  act  of  1805.  The  executive 
authority  was  still  vested  in  a  Governor  whose  term,  tenure, 
and  powers  were  the  same  as  before,  except  that  he  had  some 


38  Abridg.  of  Debates  of  Cong.,  IV.  434. 

*^  Stat,  at  Large,  II.  743-747;  Cf.  also  Mo.  Ter.  Laws,  I.  8-13. 
< »  There  are  sixteen  sections  in  this  law,  but  they  will  not  be  taken  up  here 
in    detail. 


32  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

enumerated  powers,  including  that  of  convening  the  legislature 
on  "extraordinary  occasions."  His  veto  power  was  absolute. 
No  change  was  made  in  the  term,  tenure,  and  duties  of  the 
Secretary. 

It  was  in  the  legislative  branch  of  the  new  government 
that  the  greatest  changes  are  noticed.  The  legislative  power 
w^as  vested  in  a  bicameral  body  called  the  "general  assembly." 
This  was  composed  of  a  Legislative  Council  and  a  House  of 
Representatives.  The  former  consisted  of  nine  members,  five 
making  a  quorum,  appointed  for  five  years  by  the  President  of 
the  United  States  from  a  list  of  eighteen  persons  made  by  the 
territorial  House  of  Representatives.  Provision  was  made  for 
filling  vacancies  by  the  President  appointing  one  of  two  persons 
nominated  by  the  lower  house.  Their  qualifications  were:  that 
they  should  have  resided  in  the  territory  for  at  least  one  year 
preceding  appointment;  that  they  should  be  at  least  twenty- 
five  years  of  age;  that  they  should  have  property  of  at  least 
two  hundred  acres  in  the  territory.  They  were  disqualified 
from  holding  any  other  office  of  profit  under  the  territorial 
government  except  that  of  justice  of  the  peace.  It  was  in  the 
house  of  Representatives  that  the  greatest  innovation  was 
made.  This  body  was  composed  of  representatives  elected 
for  two  years  by  the  people  of  the  territory.  The  appointment 
was  on  the  basis  of  one  member  to  every  five  hundred  free, 
white,  male  inhabitants  until  the  number  of  representatives 
reached  twenty-five,  when  the  ratio  was  left  under  the  regula- 
tion of  the  General  Assembly.  The  qualifications  for  repre- 
sentatives were  lower  in  nearly  every  respect  than  for  mcMiibcrs 
of  the  Council:  the  age  qualification  was  twenty-one  years; 
the  residence  qualification  was  the  same  as  in  the  case  of  mem- 
bers of  the  Council;  and  the  property  qualification  required  one 
to  be  a  freeholder  in  the  county  from  which  ho  was  elected. 
Vacancies  were  filled  by  a  new  county  election  on  writ  of  the 
Governor.  Annual  meetings  of  the  General  Assembly  were 
provided  for.  The  place  of  meeting  was  at  St.  Louis,  and  the 
time  the  first  Monday  in  December  unless  the  (leneral  Assembly 
set  a  different  date.     The  Governor  was  empowered  to  lay  off 


Constitutional  History  During  Territorial  Period.  33 

the  territory  into  convenient  counties  for  the  election  of  thirteen 
representatives. 

The  electors  of  representatives  consisted  of  all  the  free, 
white,  male  citizens  of  the  United  States  who  were  twenty-one 
years  of  age,  had  resided  in  the  territory  twelve  months  before 
the  election,  and  had  paid  a  territorial  or  county  tax  assessment 
made  at  least  six  months  before  the  election.  It  w^as  provided 
in  the  act  of  1812  that  all  free,  white,  male  persons  who  were 
inhabitants  of  Louisiana  on  December  20,  1803,  and  all  free, 
white,  male  citizens  of  the  United  States  who  had  immigrated 
to  Louisiana  since  December  20,  1803,  or  who  might  hereafter 
do  so,  if  otherwise  qualified,  could  hold  any  office  of  honor,  trust 
or  profit  in  the  territory  under  the  United  States  or  the  Territory, 
and  vote  for  members  of  the  General  Assembly  and  a  Delegate 
to  Congress  during  the  temporary  government  provided  for  by 
that  act. 

The  powers  of  the  General  Assembly  were  large,  comprising 
the  power  to  make  laws,  civil  and  criminal;  to  establish  inferior 
courts  and  prescribe  their  jurisdiction;  to  define  the  powers  and 
duties  of  the  justices  of  the  peace  and  other  civil  officers  of  the 
territory;  to  regulate  and  fix  fees,  etc.  There  were  certain 
express  limitations  placed  on  their  power,  however,  that  are 
important  to  notice.  All  bills  had  to  be  passed  by  a  majority 
of  each  house  and  receive  the  approbation  (signature)  of  the 
governor.  They  were  by  implication  prohibited  from  passing 
any  acts  which  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  large  number  of 
privileges  and  rights  reserved  to  the  people  and  enumerated  at 
some  length  in  section  fourteen  of  the  law.  This  section  four- 
teen is  a  very  interesting  paragraph,  as  it  is  the  first  bill  of  rights 
that  Missourians  ever  had  excepting  those  guarantees  in  the 
United  States  Constitution  and  is  an  epitome  of  the  one  included 
in  the  constitution  of  1820.  The  General  x^ssembly  w^as  also 
prohibited  by  express  provision  from  interfering  with  the  pri- 
mary disposal  of  the  soil  of  the  United  States,  etc.,  and  from 
levying  any  tax  or  impost  on  the  navigable  waters  in  or  touching 
the  territory. 

The  judiciary  was  composed  of  a  Superior  Court,  inferior 
courts  and  courts  of  justices  of  the  peace.     The  Superior  Court 

M  S— 3 


34  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

alone  was  set  forth  in  detail,  the  others  being  left  under  the 
regulation  of  the  General  Assembly  and  Governor.  This  court 
was  the  same  in  composition  and  in  term  and  tenure  of  members 
as  that  provided  for  in  the  act  of  1805.  Certain  regulations  were 
provided  as  regards  its  jurisdiction,  and  power  was  granted  it 
and  the  inferior  courts  to  appoint  their  clerks. 

Some  miscellaneous  provisions  were  also  set  forth  that  are 
important.  All  officials  were  required  to  take  an  oath  to  sup- 
port the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  discharge  faith- 
fully the  duties  of  their  office.  The  citizens  of  the  territory 
were  given  the  right  to  elect  one  Delegate  to  Congress.  Schools 
and  education  were  urged,  and  encouragement  and  aid  promised 
from  the  United  States  lands  in  the  Territory.  It  was  provided 
that  the  acts  of  1804  and  1805  when  inconsistent  with  this  act 
were   repealed. 

Pursuant  to  the  power  granted  him  in  the  seventh  section 
of  the  act  of  1812,  Benjamin  Howard,  Governor  of  the  Territory 
of  Louisiana,  by  proclamation  issued  October  1,  1812,  divided 
the  new  Territory  of  Missouri  into  the  five  counties  of  St. 
Charles,  St.  Louis,  Ste.  Genevieve,  Cape  Girardeau,  and  New 
Madrid,  and  gave  them  their  boundaries.'*^  Provision  was  made 
for  the  election  from  these  counties  of  territorial  representatives 
to  the  General  Assembly  and  also  a  Delegate  to  Congress. 
Appended  to  this  proclamation  was  a  statement  setting  forth 
the  qualifications  of  representatives  and  electors — which  was 
taken  from  the  act  of  Congress  of  June  4,  1812.  Thus  was  set 
in  working  the  new  government  of  the  Territory  of  Missouri. 

An  attempt  was  made  to  amend  the  law  of  1812,  and  on 
January  7,  1813,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Hempstead  (of  Missouri)  a 
committee  was  appointed  by  the  House  of  Representatives  "to 
inquire  if  any,  and  if  any  what,  amendments  are  necessary  to  be 
made"  to  that  act.''^  On  January  29,  1813,  this  committee 
reported  and  recommended  no  alterations.'*''  The  problem  sug- 
gested to  the  committee  was  to  settle  the  doubts  that  some 
entertained    as   to   whether   Missouri's   Territoricil    Delegate   to 


*' Am.  state  Papers.  Misc..  II.  202f;  Scharf.  op.  cil..  I.  r.nTf. 

"  Annals  o)  Congress,  p.  G18. 

**  Ibid.,  pp.  «29f;  Am.  State  Papers,  Misc.,  II.  2()lf. 


Constitutional  History  During  Territorial  Period.  35 

Congress,  who  had  been  elected  on  November  2,  1812,  in  pur- 
suance of  the  act  of  Congress  of  that  year,  could  hold  his  seat 
after  March  3,  1813.  The  committee  decided  that  as  he  was 
elected  for  two  years,  he  could  hold  his  seat  for  that  time,  and 
that  no  alteration  in  the  law  of  1812  was  necessary,  as  it  appeared 
perfectly  clear  on  this  point. 

Population  kept  increasing  rapidly  in  Missouri.  Lawrence 
county  was  established  by  the  Territorial  Legislature  January 
15,  1815,^*^  and  just  a  little  over  a  year  later  Howard  county,  the 
"mother  of  counties"  and  one  of  the  empire  counties  of  Missouri, 
was  erected  by  act  of  January  23,  1816.''^  On  January  21,  1816, 
on  motion  of  Mr.  Easton  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  the 
Committee  on  the  Judiciary  was  instructed  to  inquire  if  any, 
and  what,  alterations  were  necessary  to  be  made  in  the  act 
entitled  "An  act  providing  for  the  government  of  the  Territory 
of  Missouri"  approved  June  4,  1812."  "^^  This  committee  on 
March  6,  1816,  reported  a  bill  to  alter  certain  parts  of  the  act 
of  1812,  which  without  any  amendment  finally  became  the 
organic  act  of  Congress  of  April  29,  1816,  by  which  Missouri 
became  a  territory  of  the  highest  grade.^^  By  this  law,  the 
elective  tenure  was  also  applied  to  the  Legislative  Council,  one 
member  being  elected  from  each  county.  The  term  was  reduced 
to  two  years  and  qualifications  remained  the  same  as  in  the  act 
of  1812.  A  majority  of  the  members  constituted  a  quorum. 
The  regular  sessions  of  the  General  Assembly  were  changed 
from  annual  to  biennial  sessions.  Everything  else  of  the  act 
of  1812  remained  unchanged  except  the  provisions  relating  to 
the  judiciary.  It  was  the  provisions  in  this  act  of  1816  relating 
to  the  judiciary  that  was  its  most  objectionable  feature  to  Mis- 
sourians,  as  is  expressly  set  forth  in  the  very  earliest  petitions 
for  statehood  in  1817."^^  The  General  Assembly  was  authorized 
to  require  the  judges  of  the  superior  court  to  hold  superior  and 
circuit  courts;  to  appoint  the  times  and  places  for  the  same; 
and  to  make  rules  and  regulations  regarding  these  courts.     The 


"  Mo.  Ter.  Laws,  pp.  354fif. 

"  Ibid.,  pp.  460ff. 

"  Annals  oj  Congress,  pp.  1047,  1049,  1358,  1362. 

<'  Stat,  at  Large,  II.  328;  Mo.  Ter.  Laws,  p.  14. 

<«  This  will  receive  further  consideration  in  the  chapter  following. 


36  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

circuit  court  was  to  be  composed  of  one  of  the  said  judges  and 
to  have  jurisdiction  in  all  criminal  cases,  exclusive  original 
jurisdiction  in  capital  cases,  and  original  jurisdiction  in  all  civil 
cases  of  $100.00  value  or  over.  The  superior  and  circuit  courts 
were  to  possess  chancery  powers  as  well  as  common  law  juris- 
diction in  all  civil  cases,  provided  that  in  matters  of  law  and 
equity,  in  all  cases,  appeal  lay  from  the  circuit  courts  to  the 
superior  court  of  the  territory. 

The  year  following  this  law  of  Congress  of  1816,  which 
made  Missouri  a  territory  of  the  highest  rank,  saw  the  inhabit- 
ants here  petitioning  Congress  for  that  greatest  of  all  boons — 
the  privilege  of  statehood.  It  will  be  our  purpose  in  the  next 
chapter  to  give,  in  the  first  place,  a  short  history  of  these  efforts 
on  the  part  of  Missouri's  pioneers  to  obtain  permission  of  the 
National  Legislature  to  frame  a  state  constitution;  and,  in  the 
second,  to  sketch  the  struggle  in  Congress  itself  over  this  ques- 
tion from  1818  to  1820.  It  is  hardly  an  exaggeration  to  say 
that  seldom  in  the  history  of  this  nation  since  the  adoption  of 
the  Constitution  has  there  been  a  purely  domestic  question, 
except  of  course  the  Civil  War  of  1861-65,  that  has  so  stirred  the 
country  from  border  to  border;  has  been  so  ominous  in  so  many 
of  its  phases;  that  for  so  many  months  literally  shook  the  foun- 
dations of  the  United  States  and  brought  forth  declarations 
and  prophecies  of  the  most  calamitous  character  from  the 
mouths  and  pens  of  men  who  even  today  rank  foremost  in  the 
galaxy  of  American  Statesmen  and  authors,  as  the  famous 
Missouri  Question.  It  will  not,  however,  be  our  purpose  in 
this  book  to  do  more  than  merely  give  a  summary  of  that  ques- 
tion as  it  was  acted  upon  by  Congress. 


CHAPTER  II. 

MISSOURI    PETITIONS   FOR   STATEHOOD   AND    THE 
STRUGGLE  IN  CONGRESS 

The  earliest  agitation  for  the  admission  of  Missouri  as  a 
State  began  in  the  latter  part  of  1817.^  After  the  war  of  1812 
the  population  of  Missouri  grew  rapidly,  and  corresponding 
with  this  growth  the  desire  of  the  people  for  an  independent 
State  government  became  strong.^  In  the  fall  of  1817  this 
desire  for  statehood  found  expression  in  a  number  of  memorials 
addressed  to  Congress  and  signed  by  the  Missouri  inhabitants, 
acting  purely  in  their  capacity  as  citizens.  It  is  certain  that 
there  were  a  number  of  these  petitions;  even  today  there  are 
two  in  existence.^ 


1  Scharf,  op.  cit.,  I.  561.  In  note  one  on  this  page  appears  the  following 
extract  from  the  Missouri  Gazette  (St.  Louis)  dated  October  11,  1817:  "We 
have  seen  in  the  last  Emigrant  the  copy  of  a  petition  stated  to  be  'The  Memorial 
of  the  Citizens  of  Missouri  Territory,'  praying  to  be  admitted  into  the  Union  of 
States  within  certain  limits."  (Note:  The  Western  Emigrant  was  a  newspaper 
published  in  St.  Louis  in  1817,  succeeding  the  Western  Journal,  which  began 
publication  in  1815.  Later  it  clianged  its  name  again  and  became  known  as  the 
St.  Louis  Enquirer.) 

There  is  no  mention  of  a  petition  earlier  than  1817  by  any  of  the  writers  of 
Missouri  or  of  St.  Loms  history,  such  as  Switzler,  Davis  and  Durie.  Houck.  Carr, 
Rader,  Billon,  and  Scharf.  Some  of  these  failed  to  notice  the  memorials  of  1817, 
but  even  Mr.  Houck,  who  made  a  special  study  of  this  period,  gives  the  date  of 
the  earliest  petition  as  1817. 

Copies  of  Resolutions  of  the  Missouri  Territorial  General  Assembly  to  Con- 
gress, dated  December  1815  and  January  1816,  are  still  in  existence  in  the  Bureau 
of  RoUs  and  Library,  Department  of  State,  Washington,  D.  C,  but  Mr.  Tonner, 
Chief  of  the  Bureau,  informs  us  that  he  has  examined  these  resolutions  and  that 
they  do  not  refer  to  statehood,  but  to  entirely  different  subjects.  (Letter  of  Mr. 
J.  A.  Tonner,  January  29,  1914,  in  The  State  Historical  Society  of  Missouri.) 

Cf.  also  Parker,  op.  cit.,  p.  239. 

*  Houck,  Hist.  Mo.,  III.  243.  As  our  references  to  Houck  will  hereafter  be 
entirely  to  his  History  of  Missouri,  we  will  refer  to  that  work  thus:    Houck.  op.  cit. 

Diu-ing  the  war  the  tide  of  immigration  into  Missom-i  decreased  in  volume, 
but  after  peace  was  proclaimed,  the  rush  of  settlers  from  Kentucky,  Tennessee, 
Virginia,  and  the  Carolinas  to  that  territory  was  greater  than  ever.  (See  Mis- 
souri Gazette,  October  26,  1816.) 

'  We  are  certain  that  a  number  of  these  memorials  were  identical,  and  were 
circulated  over  the  entire  territory.  Internal  criticism  of  these  documents  pro- 
duces several  reasons  which  incline  us  to  come  to  this  conclusion:  first,  the  two 
existing  memorials  of  1817  are  so  worded  as  to  have  allowed  any  citizen  of  Mis- 
souri to  sign  them,  and  consist  of  a  comparatively  brief  printed  petition  with  a 

(37) 


38  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

It  is  known  that  on  January  8,  1818,  the  Speaker  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  of  Congress  presented  "petitions" 
from  sundry  inhabitants  of  Missouri  Territory,  praying  that 
the  said  Territory  might  be  erected  into  a  State  and  admitted 
into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States;'' 
that  on  February  2,  1818,  John  Scott,  Missouri's  Delegate  to 
Congress,  presented  a  similar  petition  from  the  inhabitants  of 
Missouri  Territory;^  and  on  March  16,  1818,  Scott  again  pre- 
sented "petitions"  of  sundry  inhabitants  of  Missouri  Territory, 
praying  for  admission,  which,  together  with  the  "petitions"  of 
a  similar  nature,  "heretofore  presented  at  the  present  session," 
were  referred  to  a  select  committee  composed  of  seven  men, 
Scott  being  chairman.^  This  committee,  on  April  3,  1818,  re- 
ported to  the  House  a  bill  to  authorize  the  people  of  the  Missouri 
Territory  to  form  a  Constitution  and  State  government,  and  for 
the  admission  of  such  State  into  the  union,  etc.  This  bill  was 
read  twice  and  committed  to  a  Committee  of  the  Whole,  where  it 
lodged  during  that  session  of  the  Fifteenth  Congress.'^ 

The  two  memorials  of  1817  still  in  existence  are  valuable 
and  interesting  documents.  The  subject  matter  of  the  one  in 
the  Library  of  Congress  is  identical  with  the  one  in  the  library 
of  The  State  Historical  Society  of  Missouri,  and  is  signed  by 
sixty-eight  persons,  most  of  whom  lived  in  Washington  county, 
Missouri.^  Two  of  these  sixty-eight  names  appear  among  the 
sixty-nine  names  attached  to  the  other  memorial.  Among  the 
former,  appears  the  signature  of  John  Rice  Jones;  on  the  other, 


small  blank  below  for  signatures  (an  additional  slieet  of  paper  covered  with  sij^- 
natures  is  attached  to  the  one  in  The  Stale  Historical  Society  of  Missouri);  second. 
on  the  back  of  the  one  in  The  State  Historical  Society  of  Missouri  is  written  in 
script,  "No.  .5,"  and  a  little  to  the  right  of  this  is  written,  "C»'.>."  The  "No.  i>" 
would  perhaps  have  little  significance  if  it  wore  not  for  the  "()•.)."  This  memorial 
was  signed  by  sixty-nine  persons,  and  it  is  not  imi)robabIt'  (hat  tills  petition  was 
the  fifth  in  circulation. 

*  Annals  of  Congress,  I.  591.      These  were  laid  on  the  tahlf. 
'  Ilrid.,  p.  840.      This  also  was  laid  on  the  table. 

^  Ibid.,  II.  \'Ml.  Mr.  Scott  also  presented  a  ptUition  of  sundry  inliabitants 
of  the  southern  part  of  the  Territory  of  Missouri,  praying  for  a  ilivision  of  the 
said  territory,  whi(;h  was  referred  to  the  same  committee.     Ihid.,    p.  1392. 

'  Ibid.,  p.   1072. 

•  Uouck,  op.  cit..  III.  245.  Mr.  Farnum,  Secretary  to  the  Librarian  of  (Con- 
gress, in  a  letter  to  the  author  dated  January  23,  1014,  stated  that  the  one  in  that 
I^ibrary  has  sixty-eiglit  manuscrli)t  signatures;  Uouck,  idem,  says  sixty-sovcn. 


Petitions  for  Statehood  and  Struggle  in  Congress.  39 

appears  that  of  John  Hutchings.  Both  of  these  men  were  later 
delegates  from  Washington  county  to  the  first  constitutional 
convention  of  1820.  The  first  eighteen  signatures  of  the  sixty- 
nine  are  included  in  an  ink  brace,  and  written  on  the  margin 
of  the  page  and  within  the  brace  are  these  words :  "All  the  Grand 
]\xry  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  Washington  county  October  term, 
1817."  The  entire  document  contains  about  seven  hundred 
and  fifty  words,  and  might  naturally  be  divided  into  two  parts. ^ 

First  are  set  forth  Missouri's  reasons  for  statehood,  in- 
cluding the  following:  (a)  the  population  of  Missouri  had 
reached  40,000;  Tennessee,  Ohio  and  Mississippi  had  each  been 
admitted  with  a  smaller  population;  (b)  the  treaty  of  cession 
guaranteed  statehood  as  soon  as  it  could  be  "granted  under  the 
principles  of  the  Federal  Constitution;"  (c)  Missouri's  training 
as  a  territory  of  the  first  and  second  class  had  covered  a  period 
of  thirteen  years  ;^*^  (d)  Missouri's  loyalty  to  the  Union  had 
been  evinced  during  the  War  of  1812;  (e)  the  evils  of  the  terri- 
torial government  were  many,  including  (1)  the  denial  of  a  vote 
in  Congress,  although  subject  to  the  indirect  taxation  of  that 
body,  (2)  the  absolute  veto  of  the  governor  on  the  acts  of  the 
territorial  legislature,  (3)  the  power  of  the  superior  court  in 
having  primary  and  final  jurisdiction  in  most  civil  and  criminal 
cases,  and  (4)  the  restricted  powers  of  the  territorial  legislature 
which  were  confined  to  the  passage  of  local  laws,  "owing  to  the 
paramount  authority  of  Congress  to  legislate  on  the  same  sub- 
ject." 

Second  are  advanced  arguments  for  the  boundaries  of  Mis- 
souri, being  the  latitudes  forty  degrees  and  thirty-six  degrees 
thirty  minutes  on  the  north  and  south,  and  the  Mississippi 
River  and  the  Osage  boundary  line  on  the  east  and  west.^^ 
Two-thirds  of  the  memorial  is  taken  up  with  this  subject  of 
boundaries  and  includes  the  following  arguments:    (a)  the  north- 


•  For  a  copy  of  the  memorial  in  The  State  Historical  Society  of  Missouri  see 
Appendix  I. 

i«  ]SIissouri  had  really  passed  through  the  three  grades  of  territorial  organi- 
zation, besides  having  been  under  a  military  government  and  also  under  the  gov- 
ernment of  Indiana   Territory. 

"  Houck,  op.  cit.,  I.  3.  "The  Osage  boundary  on  the  west  was  a  line  extending 
from  Fort  Osage  north  and  south  about  twenty-four  miles  east  of  the  mouth  of 
the  Kansas  river." 


40  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

ern  boundary  would  then  correspond  with  that  of  Illinois  terri- 
tory and  "w^ith  the  Indian  boundary  line  near  the  mouth  of  the 
River  Des  Moines;^-  (b)  the  southern  boundary  would  "be  an 
extension  of  the  line  that  divides  Virginia  and  North  Carolina, 
Tennessee  and  Kentucky;"  (c)  it  would  leave  Arkansas  territory 
a  frontage  of  three  and  a  half  degrees  on  the  Mississippi  river, 
give  Missouri  a  like  frontage  and  a  medium  depth  of  two  hun- 
dred miles,  and  leave  the  same  front  "embracing  the  great 
River  St.  Pierre"  for  a  future  State  to  the  north  of  Missouri; 
(d)  these  boundaries  would  "include  all  the  country  to  the 
north  and  west  to  which  the  Indian  title"  had  been  extinguished, 
and  also  include  "the  body  of  the  population;"  (e)  they  would 
"make  the  Missouri  river  the  centre,  and  not  the  boundary  of 
the  State"  and  thus  unite  in  one  whole  the  district  to  the  north 
and  the  south  of  that  stream — a  condition  greatly  desired  by 
choice  and  made  doubly  expedient  by  natural  location  and  the 
complementary  resources  of  these  tw^o  parts. 

For  the  first  time  there  is  set  forth  in  this  petition  any 
intimation  that  the  Missouri  River  had  ever  been  thought  of  as 
the  northern  boundary  line  of  Missouri.  That  this  had  already 
been  rumoured,  perhaps  even  advocated,  is  probable,  judging 
from  the  serious  effort  of  this  memorial  to  state  the  objections 
of  the  inhabitants  of  Missouri  to  this  plan.  It  is  evident  that 
the  memorialists  feared  Congress  might  select  the  Missouri  river 
as  a  natural  boundary  for  the  State,  so  they  added  that  they  de- 
precated "the  idea  of  making  the  divisions  of  the  States  to  cor- 
respond with  the  natural  divisions  of  the  country"  and  said, 
"such  divisions  will  tend  to  promote  that  tendency  to  separate, 
which  it  is  the  policy  of  the  union  to  counteract."  It  is  also 
interesting  to  notice  the  desire  of  the  memorialists  to  provide 
for  Missouri  a  large  frontage  on  the  Mississippi  River,  and  their 
implied  fear  of  having  a  large  tract  of  desert  land  attached  to 
the  new  State,  whereby  a  long  State  running  east  and  west,  but 
narrow  from  north  to  south,  would  be  formed. 


»*  Tho  memorial  is  unc(!rtain  in  its  statomont  of  the  northorn  boundary, 
since  paralh^l  forty  dcKrecs  docs  not  correspond  to  the  Indian  boundary  lino  as 
surveyed  i)y  .Jolm  C  Sullivan  in  IMKl.  and  as  later  decided  in  tho  United  States 
Supreme  Court  in   1S49.     Ibid.,   I.   14f. 


Petitions  for  Statehood  and  Struggle  in  Congress.  41 

We  have  already  stated  that  Httle  was  accompHshed  re- 
garding a  Missouri  bill  during  the  first  session  of  the  Fifteenth 
Congress.  However,  it  was  really  a  matter  for  congratulation 
that  a  Missouri  statehood  bill  had  been  reported  by  a  committee 
of  Congress  so  shortly  after  Missouri  had  become  a  territory  of 
the  highest  rank.  This  showed  that  the  friends  of  Missouri 
who  were  in  Congress  would  not  allow  this  subject  to  be  kept 
under  cover. 

The  year  1818  brought  forth  the  only  memorial  to  Congress 
praying  for  statehood  that  was  ever  adopted  by  the  Territorial 
Legislature  of  Missouri.  Although  in  1817  there  w^ere  a  number 
of  individual  statehood  petitions  in  circulation  among  the  in- 
habitants in  Missouri,  there  is  no  record  of  any  in  1818,  except  the 
memorial  passed  by  the  last  Territorial  Legislature  of  Missouri, 
which  adjourned  in  December  of  that  year.  During  1819  and 
1820,  however,  there  were  a  very  large  number  of  these  peti- 
tions and  remonstrances  to  Congress  drawn  by  grand  juries, 
public  meetings  of  citizens,  and  religious  bodies  in  Missouri  on 
the  question  of  statehood,  and  especially  showing  the  sentiment 
in  Missouri  at  this  time  on  the  question  of  slavery  and  the 
action  being  taken  by  Congress. ^^ 

On  November  13,  1818,  the  Territorial  Legislature  of  Mis- 
souri adopted  a  memorial  to  Congress  praying  for  statehood, 
and  during  the  same  month  they  adopted  a  resolution  on  the 
question  of  United  States  * 'donations  and  appropriations" 
advantageous  to  the  inhabitants  of  this  State. ^^ 

The  memorial  set  forth  two  main  arguments  for  statehood : 
(1)  that  the  population  of  the  territory  was  nearly  one  hundred 
thousand;  and  (2)  that  the  limits  of  the  territory  were  too 
extensive  for  the  efficient  administration  of  government.     Owing 


"  These  petitions  of  1819  and  1820  being  largely  of  the  nature  of  protests 
form  part  of  the  subject  matter  of  the  two  following  chapters. 

»<  "Memorial  and  Resolutions  of  The  Legislature  of  The  Missouri  Territory 
and  A  Copy  Of  The  Census  of  the  Fall  of  1817:  Amount  to  19,218  Males — 
December  8,  1819.  Referred  to  a  Select  Committee."  One  of  the  copies  of 
these  documents  as  printed  in  Washington,  1819,  a  six  page  pamphlet  for  the  use 
of  Congress,  is  in  The  State  Historical  Society  of  Missouri,  and  another  copy  of 
the  memorial  may  be  found  in  the  Am.  State  Papers,  Misc.,  II.  557f.  Another  copy 
of  the  memorial  is  in  Abridg.  of  Debates  of  Cong.,  VI.  381.  Houck.  op.  cit..  III. 
245,  gives  the  date  of  the  adoption  of  the  memorial  as  December,  1818;  but 
there  is  no  doubt  that  this  is  not  correct.     See  Appendix  II  for  copy. 


42  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

to  both  of  these  reasons,  but  especially  the  latter,  it  proposed  a 
division  of  the  territory.  Before  taking  up  the  consideration  of 
Missouri's  population  and  the  boundaries  of  the  proposed 
state — a  short  but  rather  involved  study  of  itself — the  rest  of 
the  memorial  will  be  analyzed.  The  memorialists  stated  that 
although  there  were  many  grievances  of  which  they  might 
complain,  yet  most  of  them  were  inseparable  from  a  territorial 
government  and  were  not  enumerated.  They  closed  this  docu- 
ment by  again  referring  to  the  question  of  population  which,  in 
the  counties  of  New  Madrid,  Lawrence,  Ste.  Genevieve,  Cape 
Girardeau,  Washington,  St.  Louis,  St.  Charles,  and  Howard 
they  stated  was  more  than  sufficient  for  admission  as  heretofore 
required  of  other  states  admitted.  The  guarantee  of  admission, 
as  set  forth  in  the  treaty  of  cession,  was  mentioned,  concerning 
which  they  said,  "much  might  have  been  claimed,  in  justice," 
etc.  The  memorial  was  signed  by  David  Barton,  as  "Speaker 
of  the  House  of  Representatives,"  its  authenticity  being  attested 
by  him,  and  was  also  signed  by  Benjamin  Emmons,  "President 
of  the  Legislative  Council." 

It  is  difficult  to  determine  the  exact  figure  for  the  population 
of  the  entire  Missouri  Territory  in  1818.  Of  course  that  given 
in  the  memorial,  one  hundred  thousand,  which  was  undoubtedly 
intended  for  the  white  and  black  population  and  excluding 
Indians,  was  too  high.  The  increase  in  population  had  un- 
doubtedly been  remarkable,  but  it  had  hardl>'  been  great 
enough  to  have  warranted  a  jump  from  19,970  in  1810  to  this 
figure  in  1818,  a  period  of  only  eight  years. ^^  The  greatest 
increase  had  been  in  the  Boone's  Lick  country  which,  in  1812, 
numbered  only  one  hundred  and  fifty  families,^*"  and  in  1817 
contained  3,386  males. ^^  The  Territorial  census  which  was 
taken  in  August  and  September  of  1817,  a  copy  of  which  was 
transmitted  to  Congress  by  Missouri's  delegate,  John  Scott, 
gives  the  total  white  male  population  of  the  territory,  exclusive 


"  U.  S.  Census,  1900.  Pop.  I.  27f. 

>«  Perkins  and  Peck,   WcsUni  Annals,  p.  750. 

>' C/.  Appendix  II,  wliicli  contains  copy  of  census  of  1M7.  and  also  Billon, 
Annals  of  St.  Louis,  1804-1821,  p.  51.  Billon  makes  the  mistake  of  niving  the 
population  of  Missouri  Territory  by  counties  for  1818.  which  sliould  have  been 
for  1817.  The  item  on  Missouri's  poi)ulation  whicli  appeared  in  A'//<$'  Register 
of  May   H),    1818,  is  noi,  trust  wort  liy. 


Petitions  for  Statehood  and  Struggle  in  Congress.  43 

of  Arkansas  county,  as  19,218.  This  would  have  made  the 
total  white  population  for  that  year,  excluding  Arkansas, 
between  35,000  and  38,000,  which  is  probably  nearly  correct, 
as  we  know  that  from  1817  to  1820  the  immigration  into  Mis- 
souri was  very  heavy,  and  that  the  white  population  in  1820 
was  55,988.^^  It  is  quite  probable  that  in  1818  the  white  popu- 
lation of  Missouri  Territory  excluding  Arkansas  county  was  be- 
tween 41,000  and  44,000,  besides  a  slave  population  of  over 
5,000.^^  This  was  undoubtedly  a  sufficient  population  for 
statehood  by  comparison  either  with  former  states  or  even 
with  some  admitted  years  after  this. 

The  boundaries  asked  for  Missouri  in  the  legislature's  memo- 
rial of  1818  included  a  far  greater  extent  of  territory  than  had 
been  requested  in  the  people's  memorial  of  1817,  and  embraced 
even  a  larger  domain  than  lies  within  the  present  limits  of  this 
State.  They  included  all  the  territory  within  the  present  State, 
except  the  two  northwestern  counties,  Atchison  and  part  of  Holt; 
a  large  irregular  portion  of  the  northeastern  corner  of  the  present 
State  of  Arkansas,  embracing  over  five  thousand  square  miles; 
and  a  long  narrow  strip  of  land  on  the  west,  about  two  hundred 
miles  long  by  sixty  miles  wide.  If  these  boundaries  had  been 
accepted  by  Congress  they  would  have  enlarged  the  present 
State  of  Missouri  from  twenty-five  to  thirty  per  cent,  or  in  round 
numbers,  about  twenty  thousand  square  miles,  and  today  Mis- 
souri would  contain  nearly  ninety  thousand  square  miles. 

The  reasons  advanced  in  the  memorial  of  1818  for  asking 
Congress  to  set  such  large  limits  for  Missouri  were:  that  the 
fertile  districts  therein  "susceptible  of  settlement,  are  small, 
and  are  separated  and  detached  from  each  other,  at  great  dis- 
tances, by  immense  plains  and  barren  tracts,  which  must  for 
ages    remain    waste    and    uninhabited;"    that    "these    distant 


«8  U".  S.  Census,  1850.  p.  665.  Cf.  also  Niles'  Register,  XIII.  166.  That 
Missouri  was  being  settled  rapidly  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  in  December  1818, 
the  Territorial  Legislature  organized  eight  counties:  Jefferson,  December  8th, 
(Mo.  Ter.  Laws,  p.  554);  Franklin  and  Wayne,  December  11th,  {Ibid.,  pp.  562f, 
567);  Lincoln,  Madison,  Montgomery  and  Pike,  December  14th,  (Ibid.,  pp.  572, 
576.  580,  585);  and  Cooper,  December  17th  (Ibid.,  p.  594).  The  white  males 
outnumbered  the  white  females. 

i«  U.  S.  Census,  1850,  p.  665.  The  free  colored  population  of  Missouri  in 
1820  was  347  and  the  slave  10,222. 


44  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

frontier  settlements,  thus  insulated,  must  ever  be  weak  and 
powerless  in  themselves;  and  can  only  become  important  and 
respectable,  by  being  united;"  and  that  one  of  the  objects  of 
the  memorialists  "is  the  formation  of  an  effectual  barrier  for 
the  future  against  Indian  excursions,  by  pushing  forward,  and 
fostering  a  strong  settlement  on  the  little  river  Platte,  to  the 
west,  and  on  the  Des  Moines,  to  the  north." 

The  most  significant  feature  of  the  Legislature's  memorial 
of  1818  is  the  large  boundary  requested.  Compared  with  the 
popular  petitions  of  the  previous  year  the  limits  of  the  proposed 
State  had  been  extended  on  the  north,  west,  and  south.  To 
ascertain  the  reasons  for  this  enlarged  boundary  in  the  1818 
petition,  other  than  those  reasons  set  forth  in  the  memorial 
itself,  is  an  interesting  problem  from  an  antiquarian  point  of 
view  and  an  important  one  from  its  bearing  on  the  history  of 
several  states.  We  believe  this  request  was  the  result  of  two 
forces:  (1)  the  general  desire  of  the  Legislature  and  the  people 
of  Missouri  Territory,  excluding  the  Arkansas  country,  for  a 
large  State;  and  (2)  the  special  influence  exerted  by  those  indi- 
viduals and  sections  in  Missouri  Territory  that  had  important 
interests  at  stake  in  such  an  extended  boundary  line. 

The  large  northern  boundary  asked  for,  which  would  have 
included  a  portion  of  the  southern  part  of  the  present  State  of 
Iowa,  was  very  probably  sought  by  the  Legislature  owing  to  a 
general  desire  for  a  large  State,  and  not  because  there  was  any 
special  demand  on  the  part  of  any  county  or  district  in  Missouri 
for  this  country.  In  fact,  it  is  very  doubtful  if  the  memorialists 
realized  either  the  vast  extent  or  the  richness  of  the  soil  of  this 
northern  country.  The  Legislature  may  also  have  been  im- 
pelled to  sanction  this  northern  boundary  in  order  thereby  to 
have  a  State  that  was  equally  divided  by  the  Missouri  River. 
At  least  it  is  quite  probable  that  the  representatives  from 
Howard  and  St.  Charles  county,  as  well  as  the  inhabitants 
of  the  potential  counties  of  Pike,  Montgomery,  and  Lincoln 
which  were  erected  into  counties  In  December  1818,  would 
favor  this. 

The  request  for  the  country  on  the  west,  especially  that 
part  along  the  Missouri,  Kansas,  and  Little  Platte  rivers,  was 


Petitions  for  Statehood  and  Struggle  in  Congress.  45 

not  such  a  haphazard  demand,  but  rested  on  a  sincere  wish  for, 
and  a  knowledge  of,  the  section  desired.  It  was  undoubtedly 
well  known  that  this  land  was  very  fertile  and  would  soon  be 
settled  by  the  pioneers  who  were  ever  pushing  westward.  The 
Indians  then  occupied  it;  and  what  more  propitious  time  than 
this  for  expelling  them  could  have  been  found?  The  demand 
for  this  country  must  have  come  largely  from  the  Boone's  Lick 
country,  which  had  already  been  formed  into  one  county  and 
was  soon  to  be  broken  up  into  many.  The  great  movement  of 
immigration  was  along  the  Missouri  River,  and  those  who  settled 
there  saw  clearly  that  population  would  continue  to  advance 
on  and  up  that  highway  and  its  tributaries.  In  1819  this  demand 
of  central  Missouri,  which  will  be  considered  below,  is  openly 
set  forth  in  the  Missouri  Intelligencer.  We  can  assign  no  reason 
for  the  Legislature's  placing  the  western  boundary  so  far  west 
between  the  Kansas  River  and  thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty 
minutes  north  latitude,  unless  it  was  a  desire  for  a  straight  line 
or  a  larger  state;  perhaps  the  members  of  that  body  reasoned 
that  by  making  the  line  continuous  they  would  obviate  making 
so  many  explanations  to  Congress.  The  Legislature  also 
probably  foresaw  that  Missouri's  Delegate  in  Congress  would 
have  to  employ  all  his  ability  to  gain  the  proposed  boundary  on 
the  south,  and  did  not  wish  to  further  embarrass  him. 

The  boundary  on  the  south,  as  set  forth  in  the  legislative 
petition  of  1818,  began  in  the  middle  of  the  Mississippi  River 
at  the  thirty-sixth  degree  of  north  latitude,  thence  in  a  straight 
southwestward  line  to  the  mouth  of  the  Big  Black  River,  then 
followed  the  White  River  to  where  the  parallel  of  thirty-six 
degrees  and  thirty  minutes  north  latitude  crossed  it,  and  then 
continued  along  that  latitude  to  the  west  until  intersected  by 
the  western  boundary.  No  reason  was  stated  in  the  memorial 
for  requesting  this  irregular  southern  boundary,  and  today  it 
still  remains  a  more  or  less  unsolved  problem.  The  question 
is  in  itself  an  interesting  one  and  of  much  historical  value  apart 
from  the  fact  that  it  was  partly  due  to  this  demand  of  the 
Legislature  and  the  influence  of  certain  individuals  that  the 
lower  part  of  New^  Madrid,  most  of  Dunklin,  and  all  of  Pemiscot 
counties,  are  today  within  the  limits  of  Missouri.     For  a  com- 


46  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

prehension  of  this  subject  it  is  essential  that  a  general  survey 
of  the  boundaries  and  population  of  the  southern  counties  of 
Missouri  Territory  be  made. 

When  Governor  Howard,  on  October  1,  1812,  issued  his 
proclamation  calling  for  an  election  of  territorial  representatives, 
he  also,  in  pursuance  of  the  Act  of  Congress  of  June  4,  1812, 
divided  and  set  the  boundaries  of  the  former  five  districts, 
which  he  designated  "counties."  The  county  of  New  Madrid 
was  composed  of  the  country  south  of  Cape  Girardeau  county, 
and  extended  to  the  very  limits  of  the  State  of  Louisiana.-^ 
On  December  31,  1813,  the  Missouri  Territorial  Legislature 
created  Arkansas  county  out  of  New  Madrid.  The  line  of 
division  between  the  two  began  in  the  Mississippi  River  at 
island  number  nineteen,  which  is  located  nearly  on  the  thirty- 
sixth  degree  of  north  latitude;  thence  it  ran  straight  to  the 
mouth  of  "Red  River"  (Little  Red,  which  empties  into  the 
White  River  some  miles  below  the  mouth  of  Black  River), 
and  then  up  that  stream  to  the  Osage  boundary  line  or  an  ex- 
tension thereof.-^  On  January  15,  1819,  New  Madrid  county 
was  further  diminished  in  size  by  the  erection  of  Lawrence 
county,  which  embraced  practically  that  part  of  the  former 
county  which  lay  west  of  the  St.  Francois  River.^^  As  indic- 
ative of  the  increase  in  population,  it  might  be  noted  that  the 
southwestern  part  of  Arkansas  county  was  divided  in  December 
15,  1818,  into  three  counties,'^^  and  that  the  United  States 
census  for  Arkansas  Territory  in  1820  gives  seven  counties 
with  a  total  population  of  14,273.2'^ 

"  Scharf,  op.  cit.,  I.  557,  M.  1. 

It  might  be  noticed  that  prior  to  1806,  New  Madrid  district  included  the 
whole  Arkansas  country.  On  June  27,  180G,  the  territorial  legislature  of  (upper) 
Louisiana  cut  off  the  southwestern  part  of  the  New  Madrid  district  of  Arkansas 
for  judicial  purposes.  Cf.  Mo.  Tcr.  Laws,  I.  08f.  This  act  was,  however,  re- 
pealed on  .July  7,  1807,  and  the  Arkansas  country  fell  back  under  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  New  Madrid  district.     Cf.  Ibid.,  pp.   178ir. 

"  Ibid.,  pp.  293ff.  Arkansas  county  embraced  all  the  country  in  Missouri 
Territory  south  of  that  lino. 

**  Ibid.,  pp.  354ff.  Lawrence  county  was  also  given  an  extension  to  the 
Arkansas  river  cut  off  from  Arkansas  county. 

"  Ibid.,  pp.  589ff. 

»<  U.  S.  Census,  1000.  Pop.,  T.  pp.  lOf.  In  1810  the  population  of  Arkansas 
was  1,002;  in  1820.  14.27:i,  distributed  as  follows  among  seven  counties:  Ar- 
kansas (along  the  Mississippi  Itiver),  1200;  (^lark  (central),  1,010;  Hempstead 
(southwest),  2,248;  Ivawrence  (north),  5,()()2;  Miller  (extreme  southwest),  099; 
Phillips   (east,   along   Mississippi  river).   1,201;  and   Pulaski   (central),    1,923. 


Petitions  for  Statehood  and  Struggle  in  Congress.  47 

There  are  several  facts  worth  noting  in  this  connection : 
1st,  New  Madrid  county,  after  the  erection  of  Arkansas  county 
in  1813,  contained  from  1813  to  1815  practically  all  of  Lawrence 
county;  2d,  Lawrence  county  was  probably  a  fairly  populous 
county  in  1818,  and  in  1820  contained  over  one-third  of  the  total 
population  of  the  Territory  of  Arkansas i^^  3d,  Arkansas  county 
must  have  had  a  large  population  in  1818  or  three  new  counties 
would  not  have  been  formed  from  it  in  that  year,  and  two  more 
between  1818  and  1820.  With  this  summary  of  the  historical 
and  statistical  data  relating  to  the  districts  interested  in  the 
proposed  southern  boundary  of  Missouri  as  set  forth  in  the 
1818  memorial,  the  reason  for  the  Territorial  Legislature  re- 
questing such  a  boundary  will  now  be  taken  up. 

It  has  been  maintained  by  some  writers  on  Missouri  history 
that  those  members  of  the  Missouri  Territorial  Legislature  of 
1818  w^ho  represented  the  counties  of  New  Madrid,  Lawrence, 
and  Arkansas,  were  the  leaders  in  advocating  this  proposed 
southern  boundary .^^  We  do  not  believe  this  position  is  well 
taken  in  regard  to  the  two  last  named  counties,  and  we  are 
even  more  convinced  that  the  constituents  of  the  representatives 
from  Lawrence  and  Arkansas  counties  did  not  favor  inclusion 
in  the  proposed  State  of  Missouri.  Some  evidence,  however, 
supports  the  former  position;  some  opposes  it. 

The  foregoing  historical  sketch  of  New  Madrid,  Arkansas, 
and  Lawrence  counties  shows  the  political  relation  between 
these  districts,  and  hence  between  the  Arkansas  country  and 
the  Missouri  country.  There  was  also  present  to  a  certain 
extent  the  relationship  of  blood  and  of  business  interest;  it 
should  also  be  remembered  that  both  New  Madrid  and  Law- 
rence counties  extended  on  both  sides  of  parallel  thirty-six 
degrees  and  thirty  minutes.  It  is  important  to  note  that  one 
of  the  trade  outlets  of  the  upper  part  of  Lawrence  county  to 
the  north  and  east  was  through  Cape  Girardeau  and  New 
Madrid    counties.     Furthermore,    it    would    not    seem    strange 


"  The  territorial  census  of  Missouri  Territory  taken  in  1817  gave  the  following 
white  male  population  to  these  counties:  New  Madrid,  669;  Lawrence,  1,529; 
and  Arkansas,  827.      (Billon,  op.  cit.,  1804-21,  p.  51. 

«  Cf.     Houck,  op.  cit.,  I.  pp.  4f. 


48  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

that  at  least  some  of  the  inhabitants  of  New  Madrid  and  Law- 
rence counties  should  oppose  having  their  counties  divided  and 
placed  under  two  territorial  or  state  governments.  The  most 
plausible  evidence  yet  produced  that  the  New  Madrid  county 
inhabitants  and  those  of  the  northeastern  part  of  Lawrence 
desired  to  be  included  in  the  new  state,  is  the  fact  that  during 
the  summer  of  1819  these  counties,  together  with  Ste.  Genevieve, 
Madison,  Washington,  Jefferson,  Cape  Girardeau,  and  Wayne 
(the  last  named,  a  part  of  Lawrence  and  Cape  Girardeau  prior 
to  December,  1818)  petitioned  Congress  for  their  incorporation 
within  the  proposed  State  of  Missouri  and  for  the  Missouri 
River  as  the  northern  boundary  of  that  State,^'^  even  though 
the  national  legislature  had  already  passed  an  act,  which  went 
into  force  July  4,  1819,  erecting  the  Territory  of  Arkansas  and 
setting  forth  its  boundaries.  The  northern  boundary  of  Ar- 
kansas Territory,  as  set  forth  in  that  act,  excluded  that  part  of 
New  Madrid  county  north  of  the  thirty-sixth  parallel,  and  in- 
cluded that  part  of  Lawrence  county  south  of  thirty-six  degrees 
and  thirty  minutes.  This  petition  or  petitions  of  1819  should 
not  be  taken  as  proof  conclusive  of  the  sentiment  of  the  people 
in  these  counties,  as  it  is  known  that  such  eminent  men  as  John 
Scott,  David  Barton,  Ch.  S.  Hempstead,  and  John  D.  Cook 
declared  that  the  people  of  Ste.  Genevieve  and  Jefferson  counties 
opposed  it;  John  Rice  Jones  of  Washington  county  said  his 
people  did  not  favor  it;  and  a  counter-petition  to  Congress  of 
the  inhabitants  of  Cape  Girardeau  county  actually  appeared.-^ 
These  arguments  have  in  them  something  plausible;  but  a 
close  examination  shows  them  unsound.  In  the  first  place, 
political    relationship   between    counties   or   between    territories 


^'Jackson    (Missouri)   Herald.   Sept.    11.    1819. 

"  Ibid.,   Aug.   23   to  Sept.    18,    1819. 

It  should  be  noticed  that  the  northern  l)Oundary  of  Arkansas  Territory,  as 
set  forth  in  the  act  of  1819.  is  i)ractically  the  same  as  tlie  present  boundary,  and 
included  l)ut  a  very  little  part  of  New  Madrid  county.  The  small  part  of  New 
Madrid  county  that  was  included  in  Arkansas  Territory  by  this  act  was  a  small 
triangular  tract  whose;  sid(!s  were:  the  St.  Francois  Kiv(>r  on  the  west,  tlie  tiiirty- 
sixth  parallel  on  the  nortli,  and  on  the  south  to  the  in(crsi>ct ion  on  the  St.  Fran- 
cois Kiv'^er  of  a  line?  drawn  from  a  point  in  tlie  Mississii)|)i  Klvcr,  at  about  tlnrty- 
six  degrees  to  the  mouth  of  tiu!  Little  Ked  Hiver  where  it  empties  into  the  White 
River.  This  small  tract  could  not  have  had  a  largo  population  at  that  lime,  as 
all  the  rest  of  New  Madrid  county  north  of  thirty-six  degrees  was  still  left  in 
Missouri  Territory. 


Petitions  for  Statehood  and  Struggle  in  Congress.  49 

is  no  proof  of  their  desire  for  union.     For  example,  there  had 
been  a  close  political  bond  between  Indiana  Territory  and  the 
Illinois  country.     Still,  when  population  had  increased  the  latter 
district  wanted  a  separate  territorial  government  of  its  own  and 
pledged  its  delegates  to  this  end,  and  this  in  the  face  of  a  strong 
opposition    throughout   the   eastern    Indiana   country.     In    the 
second  place,  the  ties  of  blood  and  interest  which  connected 
Lawrence  and  Arkansas  counties  with  New  Madrid  and  Cape 
Girardeau  counties  were  no  stronger  than  those  uniting  Lawrence 
county  with  Arkansas  county,  and  it  has  never  been  maintained 
that  the  last  named  county  desired  incorporation  in  the  proposed 
State  of  Missouri.     In  fact,  the  natural  trade  outlets  for  nearly 
all  of  Lawrence  county  lay  to  the  south.     The  main  highways  of 
commerce  were  then  the  rivers,   and  especially  was  this  true 
where  the  direction  of  the  bulky  trade  was  down-stream.     New 
Orleans  was  the  port  of  export  for  the  surplus  products  both 
agricultural  and  mineral  of  the  Mississippi  Valley.     The  surplus 
products  of  Lawrence  county  could  reach  that  city  entirely  by 
water,  and  be  propelled  by  current  the  entire  distance.     The 
St.   Francois,   the   Big  Black,   the  White,   the  Little   Red,   the 
Arkansas,  and  the  Mississippi  rivers  together  with  their  branches 
made    a   network    of   water    channels    in    this   district.     Their 
superiority  over  the  land  routes,   which   then   passed   through 
swamps  and  forests  and  over  hills,  is  obvious.     In  1818  Lawrence 
county  faced  south  and  it  remained  so  till  the  arrival  of  the  rail- 
roads.    In  the  third  place,  while  New  Madrid  and  Lawrence 
counties   extended   on   both   sides   of   the   thirty-six-thirty   line 
and  perhaps  did  not  desire  to  be  cut  into  two  parts,  this  is  not 
sufficient  reason  to  justify  our  stating  that  each  county  there- 
fore had  the  same  predilection  as  to  its  incorporation  in  either 
Missouri  or  Arkansas.     We  are  quite  convinced  that  the  exact 
opposite  of  this  is  true.         We  believe  that  New  Madrid  county 
desired   inclusion   in   Missouri;   that   Lawrence   county   desired 
inclusion  in  Arkansas.     To  us  the  most  plausible  proof,  that  has 
yet   been   brought   to   light,   showing   the   desire   of   Lawrence 
county  and,  therefore,  of  her  representatives  for  incorporation 
in  the  proposed  State  of  Missouri,   is  the  abortive  Missouri- 
river-boundary  petitions  of  1819.     These  petitions  will  be  taken 

M  S— 4 


50  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

up  again  when  we  consider  the  memorials  of  that  year,  and  we 
hope  that  the  importance  of  the  subject  will  plead  our  pardon 
for  any  repetitions  that  are  made. 

Fortunately,  not  only  do  we  know  the  general  provisions 
of  these  Missouri-river-boundary  petitions  and  the  exact  bound- 
aries set  forth  in  them,  but,  what  is  still  more  important,  we 
also  have  the  most  irrefutable  evidence  relating  to  their  value 
and  their  influence  both  at  home  and  abroad.  These  petitions, 
purporting  to  represent  the  wishes  of  the  people  of  seven  southern 
Missouri  counties  and  of  the  county  of  Lawrence  in  Arkansas 
Territory,  requested  Congress  to  give  the  proposed  State  of 
Missouri  the  following  boundaries:  on  the  north,  the  Missouri 
River  from  its  mouth  to  the  mouth  of  the  Kansas  River  and 
thence  in  a  straight  line  west  to  the  border  of  the  United  States; 
on  the  west,  that  part  of  the  western  boundary  of  the  United 
States  lying  between  the  point  of  intersection  on  it  of  the  pro- 
posed northern  boundary  of  Missouri  and  the  thirty-sixth 
parallel;  on  the  south,  east  along  the  thirty-sixth  parallel  to  its 
intersection  with  White  River,  thence  down  that  river  to  the 
mouth  of  Big  Black  River,  then  east  to  the  Mississippi  River; 
and  on  the  east,  thence  up  the  Mississippi  River  to  the  mouth 
of  the  Missouri  River.  The  plan  proposed  was  chimerical.  It 
obtained  the  sanction  of  few  if  any  leading  politicians  even  in 
southern  Missouri.  It  received  the  support  of  no  Missouri 
newspaper  and  its  provisions  were  preserved  for  posterity  by 
its  opponents.  It  was  the  most  selfish,  unpatriotic,  and  ill- 
timed  movement  in  the  early  history  of  this  State,  and  was 
then  so  regarded  by  Missourians.  No  class  supported  it  except 
perhaps  a  few  small  politicians,  who  wanted  an  issue  to  embarrass 
their  opponents  and  to  advantage  themselves  by  arousing  sec- 
tional rivalry,  and  some  large  landowners,  who  through  mis- 
directed patriotism  and  hope  of  gain  were  willing  to  sacrifice 
the  northern  Missouri  settlements  and  thwart  the  wishes  of 
the  northern  Arkansas  people.  As  annalists,  we  regret  the 
obscurity  surrounding  the  promoters  of  this  plan;  as  Missourians, 
we  find  consolation  in  this  fact.  Of  the  thousands  of  white 
male  inhabitants  in  the  counties  from  which  these  petitions 
issued,  only  five  or  six  hundred  signed  them.     It  was  this  small 


Petitions  for  Statehood  and  Struggle  in  Congress.  51 

number  of  signatures  attached,  so  said  Scott — Missouri's  dele- 
gate to  Congress — that  prevented  the  proposition  from  causing 
great  difficulty  in  Washington.-'-*  In  short,  the  leaders  of  the 
entire  movement  kept  themselves  well  hidden.  It  was  un- 
popular from  its  inception,  and  even  Cape  Girardeau  county, 
which  would  seem  to  have  benefited  most  by  such  a  plan, 
strenuously  opposed  it.  There  existed  at  this  time  a  considerable 
amount  of  jealousy  between  the  north  Missouri  country  and  the 
southeastern  counties  of  this  territory.  This  was,  we  believe, 
one  of  the  mainsprings  behind  these  petitions  of  1819.  It  is 
to  the  enduring  credit  of  the  southeastern  Missouri  counties 
that  their  people  and  their  leaders  refused  to  be  inveigled  in 
such  a  scheme.  The  plan  itself  was  absurd,  considering  it 
wholly  from  the  southern  boundary  proposed.  The  establish- 
ment of  Arkansas  Territory  several  months  prior  to  the  appear- 
ance of  these  petitions,  had  settled  the  boundary  line  between 
that  territory  and  Missouri.  Practically  all  New  Madrid 
county  had  been  left  in  Missouri  Territory;  what  little  re- 
mained in  Arkansas  is  not  worth  considering  here.  Lawrence 
county  had,  it  is  true,  been  bisected  by  parallel  thirty-six  de- 
grees and  thirty  minutes,  but  this  was  a  half  degree  farther 
south  than  the  Arkansas  petition  of  1818  had  requested  as  the 
northern  boundary  of  Arkansas  Territory.  We  are  even  forced 
to  conclude  that  these  petitions  of  1819  w^ere  as  absurd  as  they 
were  ill-timed,  as  selfish  as  they  were  abortive,  and  as  unpopular 
as  they  were  unpatriotic. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  conclusive  evidence  that  Ar- 
kansas county  did  not  favor  such  a  dividing  line  as  was  proposed 
in  the  Legislature's  memorial  of  1818.  Lying  so  far  south  that 
county  certainly  did  not  expect  to  be  a  part  of  Missouri.  Be- 
sides, in  the  fall  and  winter  of  1818-1819,  there  were  in  circula- 
tion several  Arkansas  petitions  praying  for  a  separate  territorial 
government.  One  of  these  petitions,  dated  December  (?)  1818, 
"by  sundry  inhabitants  of  Southern  Missouri  praying  for  a 
separate  government  as  the  Territory  of  Arkansas"  is  still  in 


»9  S/.  Louis  Enquirer,  Aug.  2.  1820;  Mo.  Intelligencer,  Aug.  12,  1820. 


52  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

existence.^^  The  boundary  requested  in  it  on  the  north  is  as 
follows:  "a.  line  to  be  run  due  West  from  the  Missippi  [sic] 
river  in  the  thirty-sixth  parallel  of  north  lat.  to  the  river  St. 
Francis — thence  up  the  middle  of  the  main  channel  of  the  said 
river  St.  Francis  to  the  thirty-seventh  parallel  of  north  Lat. 
and  thence  due  West  to  the  Western  boundary  of  United  States 
Territory  West  of  the  Mississippi."^^  Why,  then,  should  the 
Arkansas  county  and  the  Lawrence  county  members  of  the 
Missouri  Territorial  Legislature  of  1818  favor  an  extended 
southern  boundary  for  Missouri,  thereby  cutting  down  the  area, 
and,  what  is  still  more  important,  reducing  the  population  of 
Arkansas  territory?  And,  furthermore,  why  would  they  desire 
to  thwart  the  wishes  of  their  constituents  and  vote  contrary  to 
the  popular  petitions  of  the  Arkansas  people  in  this  respect? 
For  purposes  of  territorial  government,  the  population  of  the 
Arkansas  country  was  at  its  greatest  extent  none  too  large,  and 
the  two  counties  of  Lawrence  and  Arkansas  contained  what 
little  population  there  was.  It  is  hardly  reasonable  to  think 
that  the  inhabitants  of  this  district  should  desire  the  inclusion 
in  Missouri  of  so  many  of  their  people,  and  still  petition  Con- 
gress for  territorial  government  under  which  at  no  distant  date, 
they  would  wield  far  greater  influence  in  proportion  to  their 
numbers  than  under  the  towering  State  of  Missouri.  Instead 
of  the  delegates  from  LawTence  and  Arkansas  counties  having 
favored  this,  it  is  almost  certain  that  they  opposed  giving  Mis- 
souri any  of  the  Arkansas  country  south  of  thirty-six  degrees 
and  thirty  minutes,  and  perhaps  even  south  of  thirty-seven 
degrees,  except  the  narrow  strip  between  the  Mississippi  and 
St.  Francois  rivers  to  parallel  thirty-six  degrees.  An  article 
in  the  Missouri  Intelligencer,  dated  December  31,  1819,  serves 


»"  Found   in   House   Files.     Referred  Jan.   21,    1819.     Listed   in   Parker,   op. 

cit..   No.  272.      The  northern  boundary  clause  was  copied  for  us  by   Dr.   N.   D. 
Mereniss. 

»'  At  the  same  time  another  petition  relating  to  the  .seat  of  Kovernment  of 
the  proposed  Territory  of  Arkansas  was  presented  to  C^on^ress  by  tlie  Inhabitants 
of  Arkansas  county.      Ihid.,   No.  271.     Copy  in   The  Stale  Ili.sl.  Sue.  o)  Mo. 


Petitions  for  Statehood  and  Struggle  in  Congress.  53 

to  clear  up  much  of  this  mistaken  conception.-^-     The  following 
is  taken  from  the  article  and  explains  itself: 

"It  is  a  well  known  fact  that  if  Arkansas  could  have  had,  at  the  last  session, 
the  number  of  representatives  her  population  entitled  her  to  have,  that  Congress 
would  have  been  petitioned  to  divide  the  two  territories  by  a  line  running  west 
from  the  mouth  of  the  Ohio.  A  large  minority  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
were  in  favor  of  such  a  division,  and  hoped  that  some  member  of  Congress  would 
at  least  enquire  why  the  southern  limit  should  be  so  crooked.  The  pretended 
reason  given  for  it  at  St.  Louis  was  so  frivolous  that  it  would  have  influenced 
nobody  in  Congress."  A  part  of  the  county  of  New  Madrid,  about  fifteen  miles 
from  east  to  west,  and  about  thirty  miles  from  north  to  south,  lying  between 
the  river  St.  Francois  and  the  Mississippi  was  cut  off  from  the  center  of  the  county, 
now  territory  of  Arkansas  by  an  impassable  marsh,  over  which,  by  the  way  many 
travellers  have  passed,  and  therefore  the  line  must  begin  at  thirty-six  degree 
of  latitute  on  the  Mississippi,  and  run  west  to  the  St.  Francois,  thence  up  the 
St.  Francois  to  36  30  N.  latitude." 

It  is  certain  that  the  Arkansas  country,  including  the 
entire  counties  of  Lawrence  and  Arkansas  but  excluding  New 
Madrid  county,  had  far  fewer  representatives  in  the  lowxr  house 
of  the  territorial  legislature  than  her  population  entitled  her  to 
have.^*     That  the  omission  of  the  population  of  Arkansas  county 


"  The  article  is  on  "Missouri  State  Limits"  and  is  found  in  the  editorial 
column  thus  showing  its  importance.  It  is  an  ably  written  piece,  and  is  signed 
by  "A  Citizen."  As  the  date  indicates,  this  was  written  while  the  ^Missouri 
Question  still  hung  in  the  balance,  but  after  Arkansas  had  become  a  territory 
of  the  lowest  grade  by  act  of  Congress  of  March  2,  1819,  which  went  into  effect 
July  4,  1819.  (Stat,  at  Large,  III.  493).  The  northern  boundary  of  Arkansas 
as  set  forth  in  that  act  was  as  follows:  Starting  on  the  Mississippi  River  on  the 
thirty-sixth  parallel,  thence  along  this  parallel  to  the  St.  Francois  River,  up  that 
River  to  thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty  minutes,  and  thence  west  along  that  par- 
allel, i.  e.,  the  same  as  the  present  southern  boundary  of  Missouri. 

"  The  following  is  the  reason  given  at  St.  Louis. 

"  The  total  population  of  Arkansas  Territory  in  1820  was  14,273  and  that 
of  Wayne  county,  Missouri,  part  of  which  had  been  taken  from  Lawrence  county — , 
1,443.  Of  the  former  7,290  were  free  white  males;  of  the  latter  779  were  free 
white  males.  The  white  male  population  of  Arkansas  and  Lawrence  counties  in 
1817,  on  which  was  based  the  apportionment  of  representatives  to  the  terri- 
torial legislature  of  1818,  was  2,356 — giving  these  two  counties  only  four  repre- 
sentatives. (Billon,  op.  cii.,  1804-1820,  p.  51).  It  also  seems  very  strange  that 
in  the  copy  of  the  census  of  ^lissouri  Territory  taken  in  1817,  which  was  trans- 
mitted to  Congress  by  ]Missouri's  Delegate,  John  Scott,  there  is  given  no  census 
for  Arkansas  county  and  is  marked  simply  "no  return"  and  "1"  representative. 
One  is  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  the  territorial  census  of  1817,  as  given  in  the 
documents  accompanying  the  ^Missouri  Legislature's  memorial  of  1818.  was  too 
low  for  Lawrence  county  and  was  deliberately  omitted  as  regards  Arkansas 
county,  hence  the  small  representation  of  those  counties  in  the  territorial  legis- 
lature of  1818.  These  two  counties  should  have  had  at  least  seven  or  eight 
representatives  in  the  Missouri  Territorial  Legislature  of  1818,  and  it  is  quite 
probable  that  their  white  male  population  warranted  their  having  nine  or  ten 
representatives.  (L'.  S.  Census  1830,  Schedule  1790-1820,  pp.  23,  25;  Q.  also 
supra  m.  30.) 


54  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

from  the  state  census  of  1817  was  deliberate;  and,  that  the 
census  of  the  population  of  Lawrence  county  was  too  low,  also 
appears  from  the  number  of  petitions  from  the  Arkansas  country 
that  were  presented  to  Congress  in  1818-19.^^  We  shall  now 
conclude  this  somewhat  extended  discussion  by  stating  our 
conclusions.  We  believe  that  the  inhabitants  and  representa- 
tives of  that  part  of  Lawrence  county  lying  south  of  thirty-six 
degrees   and    thirty   minutes,    perhaps   south    of   even    parallel 

»  On  December  16,  1818,  Mr.  Robertson  of  Kentucky  offered  for  considera- 
tion the  following  resolution:  Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed  to  in- 
quire into  the  expediency  of  establishing  a  separate  territorial  government  in 
that  part  of  the  new  Territory  of  ^Missouri,  lying  south  of  thirty-six  degrees  and 
thirty  minutes  north  latitude,  which  is  called  the  Arkansas  country,  and  which 
is  not  included  in  the  proposed  boundaries  of  the  projected  State  of  ^Missouri, 
by  the  bill  now  before  the  house,  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  a  State  govern- 
ment in  part  of  the  Territory  of  Missouri,  and  that  the  said  committee  have 
leave  to  report  by  bill  or  otherwise."  This  resolution  was  adopted.  Mr.  Robert- 
son, in  support  of  the  resolution,  said  that  the  Arkansas  country  was  a  large  terri- 
tory and  should  have  a  separate  territorial  government  even  if  Missouri  was  not 
admitted  then. 

Mr.  Scott  of  Missouri  supported  the  resolution,  but  rather  hedged  in  his 
speech.  He  said  he  was  waiting  a  memorial  for  statehood  from  the  Missouri 
Territorial  Legislature  and  a  copy  of  the  census,  etc.  He  also  remarked  that 
he  had  intended  introducing  a  similar  resolution  as  soon  as  the  Legislature's 
memorial  had  arrived.  He  explained  that  he  had  not  done  this  beforehand  be- 
cause he  did  not  have  full  data,  etc.  However,  he  thought  the  population  justi- 
fied a  separate  territorial  government.  {Abridg.  Debates  of  Congress,  VI.  222. 
Annals  oj  Congress,  I.  413f.) 

It  seems  rather  strange  that  the  Arkansas  question  was  first  brought  forward 
in  Congress  by  a  representative  from  Kentucky,  and  not  by  Missouri's  Territorial 
Delegate.  There  was  perhaps  a  lack  of  confidence  in  Scott  on  the  part  of  the 
Arkansas  people,  and  they  probably  doubted  if  ho  would  urge  thirty-six  degrees 
and  thirty  minutes  as  the  dividing  line,  knowing  already  that  t'ne  Missouri  Ter- 
ritorial Legislature  was  asking  or  liad  asked  for,  territory  below  that  parallel 
for  the  future  State  of  Missouri. 

On  December  21,  1818,  House  Bill  No.  238  was  reported  "establishing  a 
separate  territorial  government  in  the  southern  part  of  Missouri."  This  passed 
the  Hou.se  February  20,  1819  and  was  read  in  the  Senate  Kel)ruary  22,  1819. 
(Parker,  op.  cit.,  p.  27.  Found  in  Hou.se  Library  and  House  Files,  Fifteenth 
Congress.)  This  bill  finally  passed  and  became  a  law  Maroli  2.  1S19.  going  into 
effect  .July  4,  1819.  It  set  the  northern  boundary  of  .Arkansas  Territory  tlie  same 
as  it  is  today,  i.  e.,  it  excluded  the  New  Madrid  strip  and  followoii  i)arallel  thirty- 
six  degrees  and  thirty  niinu((>s.  If  there  had  been  a  very  pressing  demand  on  the 
part  of  the  inhabitants  of  Lawrence  county  along  tlie  Black  River  and  the  left 
bank  of  the  White  River  for  inclusion  in  Missouri  State,  it  is  hard  to  see  why 
these  people  together  with  Scott  could  not  have  obtained  it  as  easily  as  the  New 
Madrid  people  did.  (Annals  of  Congress,  IIL  252f.,  272fT;  IV.  1222-1235.  1273f.. 
1283.) 

On  January  30,  1S19,  Scott  presented  a  petition  of  sundr.x  inhal)itants  of  the 
Arkansas  country,  praying  that  a  separati-  tcrrilorial  government  b«>  established 
for  them.  This  is  tlie  last  petition  of  its  kind  of  whieli  there  is  any  record  and  the 
only  one  presented  by  Scott.      {Ibid.,   I.  911.) 


Petitions  for  Statehood  and  Struggle  in  Congress.  55 

thirty-seven,  and  that  the  people  and  representatives  of  Ar- 
kansas county,  did  not  favor  inclusion  in  the  new  State  of  Mis- 
souri. It  seems  certain,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  people  of 
the  New  Madrid  strip  south  of  thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty 
minutes  did  have  a  sincere  desire  to  be  attached  to  this  State.^^ 
The  inclusion  in  the  legislature's  petition  of  1818  of  that  part 
of  Lawrence  county  that  lay  south  of  parallel  thirty-six  degrees 
and  thirty  minutes  was,  we  believe,  the  work  of  several  in- 
fluential landowners  and  politicians  of  southeastern  Missouri, 
aided,  perhaps,  by  a  few  similarly  interested  men  in  Lawrence 
county .^^  This  concludes  our  discussion  of  the  legislature's 
memorial  of  1818. 

On  December  18,  1818,  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives of  the  United  States  presented  to  that  body  the 
Missouri  legislative  memorial.^^  On  February  13,  1819,  the 
Missouri  bill  was  taken  up  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  and 
was  discussed.  It  was  on  this  day  that  Talmadge  proposed 
an  amendment,  limiting  slavery  in  Missouri  State  by  declaring 
free  all  negroes  born  in  that  territory  after  its  admission,  and 
by  providing  for  the  gradual  emancipation  of  those  who  were 
then  slaves.  The  Annals  correctly  state  that:  "This  motion 
gave  rise  to  an  interesting  and  pretty  wide  debate."  ^^  Two 
days  later,  Talmadge  proposed  his  famous  amendment  to  the 
Missouri  bill  by  prohibiting  the  further  introduction  of  slavery 


3«  Houck,  op.  cit.,  I.  6f.,  says  that  "to  J.  Hardeman  Walker,"  a  large  land- 
owner near  the  old  village  of  Little  Prairie  (close  to  the  present  town  of  Caruthers- 
ville),  "we  owe  it  that  the  additional  territory  now  embraced  in  the  limits  of 
Pemiscot  county,  and  most  of  that  within  the  counties  of  Dunklin  and  New 
Madrid,  was  added  to  the  new  State."  Walker  was  an  "energetic,  public  spirited" 
citizen  of  Missouri  in  1818;  his  plantation  lay  south  of  thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty 
minutes.  He  made  a  vigorous  effort  both  at  home  and  perhaps  outside  the  State 
to  have  the  New  Madrid  strip  included  in  the  State.  It  is  very  probable  that 
Scott  and  the  politicians  at  Jackson,  Missouri,  such  as  Alexander  Buckner,  Gen- 
eral James  Evans,  Judge  Richard  S.  Thomas  and  others  there  were  also  quite 
influential.  Jackson,  Missouri,  was  then  "the  great  business  and  political  center 
of  the  territory  south  of  St.  Louis,"  and  would  naturally  lend  its  greatest  support 
to  this  plan. 

"  Mr.  Houck,  in  a  letter  to  the  author,  dated  January  29,  1914,  states  that 
the  inhabitants  of  that  part  of  Lawrence  county  south  of  parallel  thirty-six  de- 
grees and  thirty  minutes  to  the  mouth  of  the  Black  river,  and  east  of  the  White 
river,  probably  lacked  a  leader  in  pushing  forward  their  desire  for  inclusion  in 
Missouri,  and  hence  were  unsuccessful. 

«8  Annals  of  Congress,  III.  408. 

»'  Ibid.,  p.    1166. 


56  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

in  Missouri  and  by  providing  that  all  children  born  in  Missouri 
after  her  admission  were  to  be  free  at  the  age  of  twenty-five 
years.  A  long  debate  followed  which  covers  twenty-three 
pages  of  the  Proceedings.  The  amendment  passed  in  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  by  a  vote  of  seventy-nine  to  sixty- 
seven.'*"  On  the  17th  of  February  the  House  passed  the  Mis- 
souri bill  with  the  Talmadge  amendment,"*^  and  the  Senate  was 
informed  to  that  effect.  The  House  bill  was  immediately 
considered  by  the  latter  body,  and  after  a  second  reading  was 
referred  to  the  committee  in  charge  of  the  memorial  of  the 
territorial  legislature  of  Alabama.''^  This  committee,  on  the 
twenty-second,  reported  the  Missouri  bill  with  an  amendment. 
The  amendment  recommended  was  to  strike  out  the  Talmadge 
amendment  of  the  House.^^  On  the  twenty-seventh,  after  a 
long  and  animated  debate,  the  Senate  by  a  strong  majority 
followed  the  recommendation  of  its  committee  in  this  respect j"*^ 
and  on  March  2d,  the  Missouri  bill,  with  the  Senate  amendment. 


*"  Ibid.,  pp.  1170-1193.  Prof.  Woodbiirn,  in  his  article  on  The  Historical 
Significance  of  the  Missouri  Compromise"  (, Annual  Report  of  the  American  His- 
torical Association,  1893,  pp.  253flf.),  says  that  neither  of  these  propositions  of 
the  Talmadge  Amendment  "proposed  to  interfere  with  the  rights  of  property 
in  the  Territory,"  but  that  these  restrictions  of  slavery  appeared  to  the  inhab- 
itants of  Missouri  and  Arkansas  not  as  restrictions  but  as  abolition,  in  view  of 
the  third  article  of  the  treaty  of  cession.  If  Professor  Woodburn  had  lived  in 
Missouri  at  that  time,  and  had  been  an  owner  of  slaves,  he  would  very  probably 
have  appreciated  and  accepted  the  Missouri  interpretation  of  this  amendment. 
Whether  the  Talmadge  amendment  proposed  the  abolition  or  the  restriction  of 
slavery  is  of  little  consequence,  but  it  is  important  to  know  that  its  application 
and  enforcement  in  Missouri  would  have  meant  the  death  of  that  institution  in 
the  proposed  state.  It  may  be  of  interest  to  note  that  the  Annals  speak  of  the 
Talmadge  amendment  as  prohibiting  slavery  in  the  new  State.  Cf.  Annals  of 
Congress,   III.   251. 

"  Ibid.,  pp.  1194-1216.  On  the  sixteenth  the  House  took  up  the  consideration 
of  the  Missouri  question  and  the  Talmadge  amendment,  and  a  debate  followed 
which  covers  twenty  pages  of  the  Annals.  The  first  part  of  the  amendmert 
prohibiting  the  further  introduction  of  slavery  in  Missouri  was  passed  by  a  vote 
of  eighty-.seven  to  seventy-six.  The  slave  children  part  of  the  amendment  passed 
by  the  narrow  vote  of  eighty-two  to  seventy-eight.  The  vote  for  ordering  the 
amended  bill  engrossed  for  a  third  reading  was  ninety-seven  to  fifty-six. 

For  passage  of  the  bill  see  Ibid.,  IV.  1218. 

**Ibid.,  III.  238. 

♦»  Ibid.,  p.  251. 

**  Ibid.,  pp.  272f.  A  motion  was  made  to  postpone  the  consideration  of  the 
bill  to  a  day  beyond  the  session.  This  was  negatived  by  a  vote  of  fourteen  to 
twenty-three.  That  part  of  tJie  .slavery  restriction  regarding  negro  children  was 
stricken  out  by  a  vote  of  thirty-one  to  seven,  and  the  other  part  by  a  vote  of 
twenty-two  to  sixteen. 


Petitions  for  Statehood  and  Struggle  in  Congress.  57 

was  passed  by  the  upper  body.^-^  The  House,  by  a  narrow  vote, 
refused  to  concur  with  the  Senate  in  its  amendment,'*^  and  the 
Senate  adhering  to  its  position  to  strike  out  the  slavery  restric- 
tion clause,'*^  the  House  agreed  to  adhere  to  its  position,'*®  and 
the  Missouri  bill  was  lost  for  that  Congress.  One  thing  regard- 
ing Missouri  had  been  settled,  and  that  was  her  southern  bound- 
ary, as  the  act  of  Congress  providing  for  a  territorial  govern- 
ment in  Arkansas  had  set  the  northern  boundary  of  that  dis- 
trict. The  boundary  of  the  proposed  new  State  of  Missouri 
on  the  north  and  west  was  still  left  to  absorb  the  attention  of 
the  inhabitants  of  Missouri  Territory,  and  curiously  enough,  in 
spite  of  the  Arkansas  act,  they  also  brought  forward  the  ques- 
tion of  the  southern  boundary. 

It  was  during  the  summer  and  fall  of  1819  that  petitions 
and  resolutions  relating  solely  to  this  boundary  question  first 
made  their  appearance  in  Missouri.  It  was  a  matter  of  the 
greatest  importance  at  that  time,  and  the  newspapers  both 
north  and  south  of  the  Missouri  river  show  clearly  the  concern 
of  all  over  it.  On  Monday,  July  5,  1819,  at  a  large  gathering  of 
citizens  at  Franklin,  Howard  county,  Missouri,  a  resolution  was 
adopted  "That,  in  the  opinion  of  this  meeting,  the  Missouri 
river  ought  to  divide  equally  the  State  of  Missouri;  and  that 
the  western  boundary  ought  to  extend  at  least  fifty  miles  beyond 
the  mouth  of  the  Kansas  river,  without  prejudice  from  the 
remote  angular  point  made  by  New  Madrid  County."  ^^  This 
resolution  was  only  another  way  of  expressing  the  wishes  of  the 
inhabitants  of  at  least  the  western  part  of  Missouri  Territory 
for  the  land  along  the  Missouri,  the  Kansas,  and  the  Little 
Platte  rivers.  The  first  expression  of  this  wish  is  found  in  the 
Legislature's  memorial  of  1818,  and  in  all  probability  its  strongest 
advocates  were  the  representatives  from  the  Boone's  Lick 
country,  although  it  must  also  have  had  the  support  of  a  majority 
of  the   Missouri   people.     The   Missouri   Intelligencer  of   1819- 


"  Ibid.,  pp.   275,   279. 
**  Ibid.,  IV.    1433fl. 
"  Ibid.,  III.   282. 
*»  Ibid.,  IV.  pp.  1436flf. 

*»  Missouri  Intelligencer,  July  9,  1819;  this  resolution  was  also  noticed  in  the 
Jackson  (Missouri)  Herald  of  September  4,   1819. 


58  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

1820  had  several  valuable  articles  on  this  subject.  One  of 
special  worth  appeared  on  December  31,  1819.  In  it  a  request 
was  made  that  Congress  allow  the  western  boundary  to  take 
in  the  "headwaters  of  the  Little  Platte"  "to  the  mouth  of 
Wolfe  river."  A  remarkable  prophecy  was  made  by  the  writer 
when  he  said:  "It  is  impossible  for  our  government  to  keep 
our  frontier  settlers  from  crossing  the  western  Indian  line  to 
the  fertile  lands  of  the  Little  Platte.  These  lands  must  be 
purchased  in  a  short  time,  and  if  annexed  to  our  State  would 
save  Congress  the  expense  of  a  territorial  government  for  a 
long  time — perhaps  for  one  hundred  years."  This  was  what 
actually  took  place,  and  in  1836  the  Platte  Purchase  gave  to 
Missouri  what  her  inhabitants  in  1819  saw  so  clearly  must 
finally  be  either  a  part  of  this  state  or  a  territory. ^^  Similar 
articles  appear  during  January,  1820,  on  this  point.  In  Feb- 
ruary, 1820,  when  the  first  draft  of  the  Missouri  Bill  was  printed 
in  the  Missouri  Intelligencer,  the  boundaries  were  the  same  as 
were  set  forth  in  the  Enabling  Act.  However,  it  was  reported 
that:  "It  is  the  intention  of  Mr.  Scott  to  introduce  several 
amendments,  so  as  to  make  it  correspond  with  the  Legislative 
memorial  as  far  as  possible."  ^^  Missouri  failed  to  obtain  the 
Little  Platte  country  at  this  time,  but  her  inhabitants  won  it 
for  her  during  the  next  sixteen  years,  and  legal  title  was  vested 
by  Act  of  Congress  in  1836. 

During  this  summer,  probably  in  July  or  August,  1819,  the 
first  and  only  Missouri-river-boundary  petitions  appeared. 
They  had  their  origin  in  southern  Missouri  and  in  northeastern 
Arkansas  and  purported  to  be  petitions  of  the  inhabitants  of 
the  counties  of  Ste.  Genevieve,  Madison,  Washington,  Jcfi'erson, 
Wayne,  Cape  Girardeau,  Lawrence,  and  New  Madrid.  How- 
ever, prominent  men  of  Ste.  Genevieve,  Jefferson,  Washington 
and  Cape  Girardeau  counties  protested  in  letters  to  the  Jackson 
(Missouri)  Herald  that  the  inhabitants  of  these  four  counties 


*"  Ibid.,  Dec.  :n,  181<).  T\w  artick'  is  siKncd.  "Citi/on."  Tlu-  writer  did 
not  think  that  tin;  wislu's  of  Howard  and  Coopi-r  c-oiintics  in  tiiis  rospool  would 
l)t!  wt'il  attended  to  l)y  Scott.  See  al.so,  Missouri  Intvlli{niicrr.  .Ian.  7.  1S2(),  an 
article  by  "Cato;"  Jan.  2H,  1S2().  an  editorial  against  a  Mi.ssouri-river-houndary 
line. 

"  Ibid.,  Fob.  4.   1S20. 


Petitions  for  Statehood  and  Struggle  in  Congress.  59 

did  not  favor  these  petitions;  and  a  counter-petition  to  Con- 
gress actually  appeared  in  Cape  Girardeau  county  opposing 
the  division  of  the  Territory  of  Missouri.-'- 

It  has  been  quite  plausibly  maintained  by  some,  that  these 
Missouri-River-boundary  petitions  made  their  appearance  in 
1818;  that  they  originated  in  the  dissatisfaction  of  many  resi- 
dents who  did  not  favor  the  boundaries  set  forth  in  the  popular 
petitions  of  1817;  and  that  they  serve  to  explain  the  ragged 
southern  boundary  clause  requested  for  Missouri  in  the  memorial 
of  the  Missouri  Territorial  Legislature  of  1818.^^  We  cannot 
understand  how  such  propositions  could  have  obtained  credence. 
It  is  obvious  that  the  primary  subject  of  consideration  here  is 
the  question  of  dates.  If  the  formerly  accepted  chronology  is 
wrong,  the  whole  argument  is  of  no  value.  If  the  Missouri- 
River-boundary  petitions  did  not  appear  until  1819,  they  could 
not  have  exercised  an  influence  on  the  1818  petition.  We  take 
pleasure  in  handling  this  matter;  in  correcting  so  important  an 
error.  The  fact  is,  as  far  as  we  can  gather  from  the  records 
preserved  of  that  day,  no  Missouri-River-boundary  petition 
appeared  until  July  or  August  of  1819.^^  No  newspaper  in 
Missouri  Territory  mentions  such  a  petition  until  1819;  nor  is 
there  any  item  on  this  subject  in  Niles'  Register  prior  to  1819. 
We  regard  this  silence  of  these  publications  in  1818  as  con- 
clusive evidence  that  no  Missouri-River-boundary  petition 
appeared  in  that  year.  It  is  certain  that  such  a  boundary  line 
would  have  attracted  attention  in  1818,  as  is  evidenced  in  the 

»«  Annals  of  Congress,  Sixteenth  Congress,  first  session,  I.  800.  For  these 
Missouri-river-boundary  petitions,  tlie  counter-petition,  letters  of  John  Scott. 
John  D.  Cooli,  John  Rice  Jones,  D.  Barton  and  Ch.  S.  Hempstead,  see  Jackson 
(Missouri)  Herald,  Aug. — Sept.,  1819. 

«»C/.,  e.  g.,  Houck,  op.  cit.,  I.  3f. 

"  The  statements  in  Houck,  op.  cit.,  I.  3f.,  regarding  these  petitions  are  in- 
accurate. This  is  due  to  a  confusion  of  dates.  For  example,  in  giving  authority 
for  the  statement  that  these  Missouri-River-boundary  petitions  appeared  in  the 
early  part  of  1818  or  at  the  close  of  1817,  reference  is  made  to  Niles'  Register 
[Sic,  17  Niles'  Register,  p.  175].  When  we  consulted  this  reference  it  was  found 
under  date  of  November  13,  1819.  Again,  it  is  stated  in  the  work  imder  dis- 
cussion, that  the  St.  Louis  Enquirer  objected  to  the  Missouri-River-boundary 
petition  of  1818.  On  investigating  we  found  that  this  objection  did  not  appear  in 
that  paper  until  December  1,  1819,  and  that  it  was  then  directed  against  the  1819 
petitions.  Cf.  Billon,  op.  cit.,  1804-1821,  p.  105;  Scharf,  op.  cit.,  I.  905;  and  also 
Houck,  op.  cit..  III.  65f. 


60  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

Washington,  D.  C,  the  Jackson,  the  St  Louis,  and  the  FrankHn, 

Missouri,  newspapers  of  1819,  when  such  a  proposal  was  actually 

made  in  the  petitions  of  that  year.-'^^     Furthermore,  the  Annals 

of  Congress  made  no  mention  of  such  a  petition  being  presented 

to  Congress  during  1818;  while  they  did  record  the  petitions  of 
1819.^6 

The  Missouri-River-boundary  petitions  stated  that  the 
Missouri  River  should  form  the  boundary  between  two  states 
and  not  be  the  dividing  line  of  a  state.  The  boundaries  asked 
for  Missouri  were:  The  Missouri  river  from  its  mouth  to  the 
mouth  of  the  Kansas  river,  thence  west  to  the  western  boundary 
of  the  country,  thence  south  along  the  far  western  boundary  to 
the  thirty-sixth  parallel,  thence  east  to  the  White  River,  and 
down  that  river  to  the  mouth  of  the  "Big  Black  river,"  thence 
east  to  the  Mississippi  River,  thence  up  the  latter  river  to  the 
mouth  of  the  Missouri  River.  There  were  several  of  these 
petitions  in  circulation,  as  the  Annals  state  that  on  December 
18,  1819,  the  Speaker  of  the  House  presented  "petitions,"  which, 
judging  from  the  order  of  arrangement  of  the  names  of  the 
counties  from  which  they  came,^^  were  undoubtedly  the  same 
as  the  above. 

The  question  naturally  arises  whether  these  petitions  re- 
ceived any  considerable  support  in  either  Missouri  or  Arkansas 
Territory.  As  this  has  already  been  discussed  wc  will  make 
only  a  few  additional  remarks.  These  petitions  did  not  have 
the  support  of  many  followers  either  in  Arkansas  Territory  or 
in  Missouri.  If  prominent  and  influential  men  in  the  last 
Territorial  Legislature  did  in  1818  favor  the  inclusion  of  north- 
eastern Arkansas,  they  probably  saw  in  1819  that  further  effort 
in  this  line  was  futile.  Missouri  had  been  given  her  southern 
boundary  when  Arkansas  Territory  was  organized  July  4,  1819. 


"  C/.  Niles'  Register,  XVII.  175  (Nov.  i:i,  1819):  SI.  Louis  EuQuirer.  Dec.  1. 
1819;  Misst.uri  Intellif/encer,  Dec.  17,  1819;  Jackson  (Mi.ssouri)  Jit  raid,  Aug. — 
Sept..    1819. 

»•!.  8()().  (Doc.  28.  1819.)  The  potitions  presented  to  ('ongrcss  on  March 
16.  1818,  (Cannot  by  the  widest  Interpretation  be  construed  to  have  been  Mlssouri- 
Kiver-boundury  potitions.  (C/.  Annals  of  Congress,  II.  i:i91f.)  Most  of  tlieni 
were  probably  the  popular  petitions  of  1817.  and  some  were  prol)ably  petitions 
from  the  Arkansas  country  praying  for  a  separate  territorial  government. 

»'  Ibid.,  I.  800. 


Petitions  for  Statehood  and  Struggle  in  Congress.  61 

The  New  Madrid  strip  had  been  left  to  Missouri;  Arkansas 
had  been  given  no  more  than  justly  belonged  to  her.  The 
boundaries  proposed  in  the  petitions  were  too  fanciful  ever  to 
have  succeeded  even  under  more  favorable  surroundings.  From 
all  that  we  can  learn,  the  plan  was  put  on  foot  and  carried  out 
with  the  greatest  secrecy.  The  opposition  to  it  in  the  only 
newspaper  published  in  south  Missouri  was  bitter  and  un- 
reserved. It  was  probably  as  decisively  opposed  in  Arkansas 
Territory.  At  all  events  it  did  not  obtain  a  hearty  welcome 
anywhere  and  instead  of  being  endorsed  by  a  thousand  males 
in  Lawrence  county  alone,  it  received  a  total  of  but  five  or  six 
hundred  signatures  in  the  eight  counties  of  Ste.  Genevieve, 
Madison,  Washington,  Jefferson,  Wayne,  Cape  Girardeau, 
Lawrence,  and  New  Madrid. 

Scott,  in  a  letter  dated  August,  1820,  to  the  people  of  Mis- 
souri announcing  his  candidacy  for  representative  to  Congress, 
states  that  these  Missouri-River-boundary  petitions  caused 
him  trouble  in  Congress  but  that  they  were  put  aside  owing 
to  "The  comparatively  small  number  of  the  whole  mass  of  the 
people  who  signed  those  petitions,  being  only  between  five  and 
six  hundred  signers,  the  obvious  bad  policy  of  the  measure,  and 
the  dangers  of  delay,  which  our  friends  evidently  saw  must 
result  from  such  a  division"  etc.,  etc.^^  The  articles  and  edi- 
torials in  the  Missouri  newspapers  of  that  day  sustain  Scott  in 
this  respect.  None  of  these  publications  favored  these  petitions, 
and  all  were  quite  pronounced  in  their  opposition  to  them.  The 
St.  Louis  Enquirer  of  December  1,  1819,  was  outspoken  against 
the  petitions;  and  said  that,  after  a  few  miles  of  woodland  on 
the  principal  rivers,  there  appear  the  "naked  and  arid  plains."  ^^ 
This  paper  adds  that:  "The  petition,  as  might  be  readily 
supposed,  meets,  among  the  people  of  the  territory  with  a  very 
few  friends. "^^  The  National  Intelligencer  of  Washington,  D. 
C,  did  not  think  it  would  be  successful,  although  it  rather  ap- 
proved the  proposition  of  a  series  of  long,  narrow  states  west  of 


^»  St.  Louis  Enquirer,  Aug.  2,  1820;  Missouri  Intelligencer,  Aug.  12,  1820. 
^^  Missouri  Intelligencer,  Dec.  17,  1819.     An  article  by  "An  Observer." 
^0  Ibid.,  Dec.   17,  1819.     Taken  from  the  National  Intelligencer. 


62  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

the  Mississippi  River,  similar  to  Tennessee.^^  The  Missouri 
Intelligencer  vigorously  opposed  the  petition  and  suggested  that 
the  southern  boundary  of  Missouri  be  a  line  running  west  from 
the  mouth  of  the  Ohio  river,  and  that  the  State  be  so  enlarged 
as  to  make  the  Missouri  River  the  actual  center  of  it.^-  The 
Jackson  Herald  was  as  bitter  as  the  Missouri  Intelligencer  in 
its  attack  on  these  petitions.  Although  this  subject  has  a 
special  attraction  to  us,  it  will  now  be  necessary  to  consider  the 
fight  in  Congress  over  the  Missouri  question  during  the  first 
session  of  the  sixteenth  Congress,  which  finally  resulted  in  the 
passage  of  an  Enabling  Act. 

On  December  8,  1819,  Scott  introduced  in  the  House  the 
memorial  of  the  Territorial  Legislature  and  those  of  the  in- 
habitants of  Missouri,  praying  for  statehood,  which  had  been 
presented  to  the  House  at  the  last  session  of  Congress.^^  These 
were  referred  to  a  committee  of  five,  of  which  Scott  was  chair- 
man. A  Missouri  bill  was  reported  from  this  committee  the 
following  day,  and  from  that  time  to  the  end  of  December,  it 
was  under  discussion.^^  It  is  important  to  notice  that  on  De- 
cember 30th,  when  the  Maine  statehood  bill  was  taken  up, 
Clay,  in  a  speech,  sought  to  connect  the  Missouri  proposition 
with  it.  The  Maine  bill  passed  the  House  on  January  3,  1820, 
and  was  sent  to  the  Senate.^^ 

The  Senate  had  already  received  the  Missouri  Legislature's 
memorial,^^  and  the  Judiciary  Committee  to  whom  it  had  re- 
ferred the  Maine  bill  reported  that  bill  with  an  amendment, 
which  was  the  Missouri  bill  without  restrictions.  On  January 
13,  1820,  the  Senate  took  up  this  Maine-Missouri  bill  as  re- 
ported, and  an  effort  was  made  to  separate  the  two.  This  at- 
tempt at  a  separation  of  the  two  bills  was  lost  by  a  vote  of 
twenty-five  to  eighteen.®^     On  the  seventeenth  an  amendment 


•'  Ibid.,  Dec.  17,  1819.  This  paper,  i.  e.,  the  National  Intelligencer,  said  that 
it  was  unfair  to  give  three  states  a  frontage  on  the  Mississippi  river,  and  all  the 
States  west  of  these  to  have  no  frontage,  besides  being  both  "feeble  and  remote, 
with  a  foreign  nation  on  tlieir  confines." 

"  Ibid.,  Dec.  31.  1H1». 

**  Annals  of  Congress,  I.  704. 

**  Ibid.,  pp.  711.  732.  734fr..  801ff. 

"  Ibid.,  pp.  831-44.  848f. 

••  Ibid.,  pp.  42f..  73f. 

•'  Ibid.,  pp.  85-y<J.  101-118. 


Petitio7is  for  Statehood  and  Struggle  in  Congress.  63 

was  offered  by  Edwards  to  exclude  slavery  from  the  other 
territory  of  the  United  States,  but  this  amendment  was  with- 
drawn.^^ On  the  same  day  Roberts  offered  an  amendment  to 
the  Missouri  amendment  to  the  Maine  bill,  excluding  the 
further  introduction  of  slavery  into  Missouri.^^  An  animated 
debate  took  place  in  the  Senate  following  this.  The  next  day, 
Thomas  introduced  a  bill,  which  later  became  the  basis  of  the 
First  Missouri  Compromise,  which  prohibited  slavery  in  all 
the  territory  of  the  United  States  north  and  west  of  the  pro- 
posed State  of  Missouri;  the  line  of  demarcation  on  the  south 
being  thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty  minutes. ^^  The  entire 
Missouri  question  was  before  the  Senate  during  the  re- 
mainder of  January,  and  the  discussion  in  the  Senate  at  this 
time  covers  two  hundred  pages  of  the  Annals J^  On  February 
first,  a  vote  was  taken  on  Roberts'  amendment  and  it  lost  by 
a  large  majority."^'  On  the  third,  Thomas  of  Illinois  offered  ani 
amendment  to  the  Missouri  bill,  prohibiting  slavery  in  all  the 
Louisiana  Purchase  north  of  thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty  min- 
utes, except  in  the  proposed  State  of  Missouri.  This  was  the 
First  Missouri  Compromise  as  finally  adopted. ^^  Thomas  later 
withdrew  his  amendment,  and  the  debate  continued  beyond  the 
middle  of  the  month. '^'^  On  the  sixteenth,  the  Maine-Missouri 
bill  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  twenty-three  to  twenty-one. 
Thomas  then  proposed  his  thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty  minute] 
amendment,  and  several  attempts  at  changing  it  were  voted 
down.''^  On  the  seventeenth,  the  Thomas  amendment  passed 
by  a  vote  of  thirty-four  to  ten,  and  on  the  eighteenth  the 
Maine-Missouri  bill,  with  this  amendment,  passed  the  Senate. ^^ 
In  the  meantime,  the  House  had  had  the  Missouri  Question 
under  consideration.     On  December  28th,  the  petitions  of  the 


«» Ihid.,  p.  119. 
**  Ibid.,  pp.  119-156. 
■'"Ibid.,  pp.  157f. 
"  Ibid.,  pp.  159-359. 
'2  Ibid.,  p.  359. 

"  Ibid.,  p.  363;  Cf.  also  pp.  360f. 

^*  Ibid.,  p.  367.     On  February  7th,  Thomas  withdrew  his  amendment.     See 
also  pp.  374-417. 

'» Ibid.,   pp.   418-424. 
'•  Ibid.,  p.  430. 


i 


64  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

eight  Missouri-Arkansas  counties  had  been  presented  to  that 
body,  and  on  January  third,  Scott  presented  a  petition  and  re- 
monstrance of  the  Baptist  Association  of  Mt.  Zion,  Howard 
county,  Missouri  Territory,  protesting  against  the  interference 
of  Congress  in  the  provisions  of  the  constitution  contemplated 
for  Missouri  upon  its  admission  into  the  Union,  and  also  against 
any  restrictions  on  the  rights  of  property J^  It  was  on  January 
24th  that  the  House  took  up  in  earnest  the  Missouri  Question; 
and  until  February  19th,  this  was  the  single  great  subject  under 
consideration.^^  On  the  latter  day  the  Maine-Missouri  bill  of 
the  Senate  was  taken  up,  and  on  the  twenty-third  the  House, 
by  a  vote  of  ninety-three  to  seventy-two,  "disagreed"  to  having 
jthe  Missouri  bill  attached  to  the  Maine  bill,  and  then  by  a  large 
ote  further  "disagreed"  to  all  amendments  of  the  Senate  to 
the  Maine  bill.'^^  The  Missouri  bill  was  taken  up  on  the  latter 
day  and  was  discussed  until  the  twenty-eighth,  when  the  Senate 
informed  the  House  that  they  insisted  on  their  amendment  to 
the  Maine  bill.  It  should  be  noticed  that  on  the  26th  Storrs 
^of  New  York  proposed  an  amendment  to  the  Missouri  bill  which 
^was  practically  the  same  as  Thomas's  amendment  in  the  Senate. 
The  House,  on  receipt  of  the  Senate's  message,  insisted  by 
a  vote  of  ninety-seven  to  seventy-six  on  "disagreeing"  to  the 
first  eight  sections  of  the  Senate's  amendment  (the  Missouri 
bill)  to  the  Maine  bill,  and  also  by  a  vote  of  one  hundred  and 
sixty  to  fourteen  disagreed  to  the  Thomas  amendment. ^^  The 
Senate  then  asked  the  House  to  appoint  a  committee  to  meet 
with  one  they  had  appointed  for  a  discussion  in  joint  conference 
of  the  differences  over  the  Maine-Missouri  bill.  On  the  same 
day  the  House  negatived  Storrs's  amendment.  On  the  day 
following,  the  House  agreed  to  the  conference  asked  by  the 
Senate,  and  appointed  five  of  its  members  to  represent  it. 
After  discussing  the  Missouri  bill,  the  House  passed  a  slavery 
restriction  amendment  to  it  by  a  vote  of  ninety-four  to  eighty-six, 
and  the  bill,  by  a  vote  of  ninety-three  to  eighty-four,  was  or- 


"  Ibid.,   pp.  800.  848. 

»«/6id..  pp.  mit.,    940-947.  949-1042.  1040.  1()G4,  1009-11.10.  1138-1170, 
1172-1289.  (II),  1291-1.329.  1333-1403.  1405. 
'*  Ibid..   11.  140.'")- 10.  1412-.'iO.  14r»3-57. 
*<>  Ibid.,   pp.  1552-.'i7.  See  al.so  pp.  1457-1463.  1466-89,  1491-1541,  1552-55. 


Petitions  for  Statehood  and  Struggle  in  Congress.  65 

dered  engrossed  for  the  third  reading.^^  On  March  first,  the 
Missouri  bill,  with  its  slavery  restriction  amendment,  passed 
the  House  by  a  vote  of  ninety-one  to  eighty-two,  and  was  sent 
to  the  Senate.^-  When  the  separate  Missouri  House  bill,  pro- 
hibiting the  further  introduction  of  slavery  in  Missouri,  reached 
the  Senate  on  the  second,  that  body  at  once  proceeded  to  vote 
out  the  restriction  and  insert  the  Thomas  amendment,  and 
send  it  back  to  the  House. ^  On  this  day,  Holmes,  chairman 
of  the  House  committee  in  the  Joint  Conference,  reported  three 
recommendations:  1st  that  the  Maine-Missouri  bill  be  sep- 
arated and  pass  as  separate  bills;  2d  that  the  slavery  restriction 
in  the  Missouri  bill  be  stricken  out;  and  3d  that  the  Thomas 
amendment  be  inserted  in  the  Missouri  bill.  The  House  then 
struck  out  the  slavery  restriction  by  a  vote  of  ninety  to  eighty- 
seven;  inserted  the  Thomas  amendment  by  a  vote  of  one  hun- 
dred thirty-four  to  forty-two;  and  passed  the  Missouri  bill  in 
this  form.^^ 

This  ended  the  first  Missouri  fight  in  Congress,  which  had 
continued  for  two  sessions  of  that  body,  and  had  absorbed  the 
attention  not  only  of  the  National  Legislature  but  of  the  entire 
Nation.  Thomas  Jefferson,  in  a  private  letter,  dated  February 
7,  1820,  says:  "It  [i.  e.,  the  Missouri  Question]  is  the  most 
portentous  one  which  ever  yet  threatened  our  Union.  In  the 
gloomiest  moment  of  the  revolutionary  war  I  never  had  any 
apprehensions  equal  to  what  I  feel  from  this  source."  And 
again,  in  another  letter,  dated  April  22,  1820,  after  the  first 
fight  had  ended,  he  gloomily  and  prophetically  adds:  "But 
this  momentous  question,  like  a  fire  ball  in  the  night,  awakened 
and  filled  me  w^ith  terror.  I  considered  it  at  once  as  the  knell 
of  the  Union.  It  is  hushed,  indeed,  for  the  moment.  But  this 
is  a  reprieve  only,  not  a  single  sentence. "^^  The  struggle  in 
Congress  revealed  the  desire  of  the  House  to  place  a  restriction 
on  slavery  in  Missouri,  and  the  determination  of  the  Senate  to 


«>  Ibid.,  pp.  1558-1568. 
«=  Ibid.,  pp.   1572f. 
•»  Ibid.,  I.  pp.  467fl. 
«*  Ibid.,  II.  pp.   1575-88. 

»  Writings,   X.    156.     (Letter   to   Hugh   Nelson,   dated   February   7,    1820.) 
Ibid.,  pp.  157f.     (Letter  to  John  Holmes,  dated  April  22,  1820.) 
M  S — 5 


66  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

prevent  this.  The  Compromise  originated  in  the  Senate  and 
was  the  product  of  Thomas,  who  introduced  it  as  a  bill,  then  as 
an  amendment;  who  withdrew  it,  and  again  introduced  it  as 
an  amendment,  which  passed  the  Senate  and,  finally,  the  House. 
The  amendment  proposed  by  Thomas  is  practically  the  same 
as  that  of  Storrs's  in  the  House,  but  the  former  introduced  his 
first.  The  Missouri  Enabling  Act  was  approved  by  President 
Monroe  on  March  6,  1820;^^  its  provisions  will  now  be  con- 
sidered in  concluding  this  chapter. 

The  act  of  March  6,  1820,  consisted  of  eight  sections.  The 
first  section  empowered  the  inhabitants  of  Missouri  Territory, 
under  such  rules  and  regulations  as  were  later  set  forth,  to  form 
a  constitution  and  state  government  and  to  assume  such  name 
as  they  wished.  It  also  declared  that  such  state  when  formed 
should  be  admitted  into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the 
original  states  in  all  respects.  It  was  in  pursuance  of  this 
section  and  by  virtue  of  the  authority  therein  given  to  Missouri 
that  the  inhabitants  of  this  territory,  acting  in  a  regularly  con- 
stituted manner,  framed  and  adopted  a  state  constitution; 
organized  and  set  in  working  a  state  government;  and  choose 
a  name  for  their  state.  It  is  regrettable  that  the  latter  part  of 
this  section  was  not  so  readily  carried  out. 

Section  two  defined  the  boundaries  of  the  new  state,  which 
were  the  same  as  those  set  forth  in  article  I  of  the  Missouri 
Constitution  of  1820.  Curiously  enough  these  boundaries  were 
nearly  the  same  as  those  requested  in  the  popular  memorials  of 
1817.  The  northern  boundary  in  the  memorial  of  1817  was  the 
same  as  that  included  in  the  P^nabling  Act  of  1820,  /.  e.,  about 
forty  degrees  and  thirty-five  minutes,**^  while,  as  set  forth  in 
the  legislative  memorial  of  1818,  it  ran  about  one  degree  farther 
north  or  between  sixty  and  seventy  miles.  The  western  bound- 
ary requested  in  the  memorial  of  1817  was  the  Osage  boundary 

**Stat.  at  L(ir(i(\  III.  riATAt;  Mo.  Tcr.  Lnus,  1.  OL'Stf;  Aininis  of  Congress,  Six- 
teenth C^ongress,  first  session,  II.  25r>r)ir. 

«'  As  we  hav(!  noticed,  tiie  memorial  of  1817  was  confusing  in  its  language  on 
the  northern  boundary.  That  memorial  speaks  in  one  place  of  making  the  north- 
ern boundary  coincide  with  (he  fortitah  parallel,  and  in  another  witli  the  Indian 
boundary  line  near  the  mouth  of  the  Des  Moines  Klver.  Tlu^  Indian  bouiulary 
line  was  later  decided  to  be  that  surveyed  by  .John  C\  Sullivan  in  ISIO.  and  is 
about  forty  degrees  and  thirty-five  minutes  north  latitude.  Houck.  op.  cit., 
1.   14f.   (jiannett.  Boundaries  vj    United  Stales,  pp.   l'22t. 


HCINDARV  OV  MISSOURI  AS  FIRST 
SUGGESTED  IX  1817. 

Vnm  Houck's  Hist,  of  Mo.,  I.  .;. 


liDUNDARYOE  MISSOURI  AS  SUGGESTED  HVTHI 
TERRITORIAL   LEGISLATURE  IN"  iSis. 

From  Houck's  Hist,  oj  Mo.,  I.  5. 


BOUNDARY  OF  MISSOURI  AS  ADOPTED  BY 
CONGRESS  IN  1820. 

From  Houck's  Hist,   of  Mo.,  I.  6. 


BOUNDARY  OF  MISSOURI   WITH   THE  PLATTE 
PURCHASE  ADDED. 

From  Houck's  Hist,  of  Mo.,  I.  12. 


72834 -CG 


Petitions  for  Statehood  and  Struggle  in  Congress.  67 

line,  or  a  line  about  twenty-four  miles  east  of  the  one  adopted 
in  the  Enabling  Act,  which  latter  was  a  north  and  south  line 
running  through  the  mouth  of  the  Kansas  river:  the  boundary 
requested  in  the  legislative  memorial  of  1818  was  thirty  miles 
to  the  west  of  the  one  named  by  Congress.  The  southern 
boundary  set  forth  in  the  1817  memorial  was  thirty-six  degrees 
and  thirty  minutes,  which  was  adopted  by  Congress,  except  to 
include  the  New  Madrid  strip  between  the  Mississippi  River 
and  the  St.  Francois  River  as  far  as  the  thirty-sixth  parallel. 
As  has  already  been  stated  above,  the  legislative  memorial  of 
1818  had  asked  for  much  more  than  this  on  the  southeast.  In 
both  memorials  and  in  the  Enabling  Act,  the  eastern  boundary 
was  naturally  the  Mississippi  River.  From  this  summary  it 
is  seen  that  Congress  decided  in  favor  of  the  1817  petitions  on 
the  northern  boundary;  compromised  between  the  petitions  of 
1817  and  1818  on  the  western  boundary;  and  in  general  followed 
the  petition  of  1817  on  the  southern  boundary,  making,  however, 
a  slight  concession  on  the  extreme  southeast  in  favor  of  the  1818 
petition. 

These  extensive  boundaries,  which  made  Missouri  at  that 
time  the  second  largest  state  geographically,  were  not  obtained 
w^ithout  some  opposition  in  Congress, ^^  and  were  probably  the 
result  of  the  activity  of  Missouri's  Delegate  in  Congress.  Scott 
said,  in  a  letter  regarding  this:  ''I  had  some  difihculties  to  en- 
counter in  regard  to  the  boundaries  of  our  state,  these  grew  princi- 
pally out  of  those  petitions  of  a  part  of  our  citizens,  that  had  for 
their  object  to  make  the  Missouri  River  the  dividing  line.  The 
comparatively  small  number  of  the  whole  mass  of  the  people  who 
signed  these  petitions,  being  only  between  five  and  six  hundred 
signers,  the  obvious  bad  policy  of  the  measure,  and  the  dangers 
of  delay,  which  our  friends  ardently  saw  must  result  from  such 
a  division  enabled  me  to  put  the  application  aside,  and  that 
boundaries  adjusted  which  are  as  large  as  I  was  able  to  obtain. 
The  smaller  states  felt  the  weight  of  the  larger  states  and  did 
not  want  to  increase  their  number,  and  the  larger  states  did  not 
want  to  create  rivals  to  their  preponderance."  ^^ 


««  Niles'  Register,  XVII.  440. 

««5^  Louis  Enquirer,  Aug.  2,  1820;  Missouri  Intelligencer,  Aug.  12,  1820. 


68  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

Congress  further  stated  that  these  were  to  be  the  boundaries 
of  this  State:  provided,  that  this  State  ratify  them,  "and  pro- 
vided also"  that  this  State  have  concurrent  jurisdiction  on  the 
Mississippi  "and  every  other  river  bordering  on  the  said  State" 
so  far  as  they  form  its  boundary,  and  that  the  Mississippi  River 
and  the  navigable  rivers  leading  into  it  shall  be  "common  high- 
ways, and  forever  free,  as  well  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  said 
State  as  to  other  citizens  of  the  United  States,  without  any  tax, 
duty,  import  or  toll  therefor,  imposed  by  the  said  State."  The 
first  proviso  was  carried  out  in  article  I  of  the  Missouri  Con- 
stitution of  1820,  and  the  second  in  section  2  of  article  X. 

The  third  section  of  the  Enabling  Act  provided  for  the 
election  of  representatives  to  a  constitutional  convention.  The 
electors  included  "all  free  white  male  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  who  shall  have  arrived  at  the  age  of  twenty-one  years, 
and  have  resided  in  said  territory  three  months  previous  to  the 
day  of  election,  and  all  other  persons  qualified  to  vote  for  repre- 
sentatives to  the  General  Assembly  of  the  said  territory." 
This  is  one  of  the  lowest  qualifications  for  an  elector  that  have 
ever  obtained  in  Missouri.  It  is  recalled  that  the  act  of  Con- 
gress of  June  4,  1812,  relating  to  Missouri,  provided  that  electors 
of  representatives  to  the  Territory  Legislature  were  required  to 
have  resided  in  the  territory  twelve  months  before  the  election, 
and  to  have  paid  a  territorial  county  tax  assessment  made  at 
least  six  months  before  the  election.  The  qualifications  of  elect- 
ors as  set  forth  in  the  Constitution  of  1820  omitted  the  tax  re- 
quirement, but  required  a  residence  of  one  year  in  the  State 
and  three  months  in  the  county  or  district. ^^ 

The  forty-one  representatives  or  delegates  to  the  conven- 
tion were  apportioned  among  the  fifteen  counties  of  Missouri  as 
follows:  Howard,  five;  Cooper,  three;  Montgomery,  two;  Pike, 
one;  Lincoln,  one;  St.  Charles,  three;  Franklin,  one;  St.  Louis, 
eight;  Jefi"erson,  one;  Washington,  three;  Ste.  Genevieve,  four; 
Madison,  one;  Cape  Girardeau,  five;  New  Madrid,  two;  Wayne, 
including  that  portion  of  Lawrence  county  in  Missouri,  one. 

This  apportionment  was  manifestly  unjust  to  certain  coun- 
ties, as  is  seen  on  consulting  the  United  States  census  of  Mis- 

*' Missouri  Constitution,  1820.  III.  Sec.  10. 


Petitions  for  Statehood  and  Struggle  in  Congress. 


69 


souri  taken  in  August,  1820,  by  the  United  States  Marshal. ^^ 
Although  there  are  individual  exceptions,  it  is  clear  that  the 
counties  north  of  the  Missouri  river  and  the  county  of  Cooper 
were  the  most  unfairly  dealt  with  in  this  apportionment.  These 
counties  contained  a  population  of  32,859  and  were  apportioned 
only  fifteen  delegates,  while  the  counties  south  of  the  Missouri 
river,  excluding  Cooper,  contained  a  population  of  33,745  and 


«>  The  Missouri  Intelligencer  of  April  16,  1821,  gives  the  total  population  of 
Missouri  taken  by  the  United  States  Marshal  on  August  1,  1820,  as  66,604;  the 
U.  S.  Census  of  1850,  p.  665,  gives  the  population  of  Missouri  in  1820  as  66,557; 
and  the  U.  S.  Census  of  1900,  Pop.  I.  pp.  27f.,  as  66.586.  Following  is  the  census 
of  Missouri  in  1S20  arranged  by  counries: 


Cape  Girardeau. 

Cooper 

Franklin 

Howard 

Jefferson 

Lincoln 

Madison 

Montgomery .... 
New  Madrid.  .  .  . 

Pike 

St.  Charles 

Ste.  Genevieve.  . 

St.  Louis 

Washington 

Wayne 

Actual  Total 


According  to  the 

Missouri 

Intelligencer, 

April  16,  1821. 


5,965 
6,959 
2,379 
13,427 
1,835 
1,662 
2,047 
3,074 
2,296 
3,747 
3,990 
5,048 
9,732 
3,000 
1,443 


66,604 


According  to 

United  States 

Census, 

1900. 


5,968 
6,959 
2,379 

13,426 
1,835 
1,662 
2,047 
3,074 
2.296 
3,747 
3,970 
4,962 

10,049 
2,769 
1,443 


66,586 


The  very  slight  difference  in  the  census  according  to  the  two  above  sources 
is  not  sufficient  to  justify  discussion  in  this  work.  It  might  be  of  interest  to  note 
that  the  (St.  Louis)  Missouri  Gazette  of  ]SIarch  14,  1821,  gives  the  enumerated 
population  of  St.  Louis  by  sex,  color,  and  age,  and  its  total  is  9,732,  or  the  same  as 
the  Missouri  Intelligencer  April  16,  1821.  In  this  chapter,  the  figures  of  the 
Missouri  Intelligencer  will  be  used  unless  otherwise  specified.  However,  the  gen- 
eral statements  made  and  conclusions  reached  hold  equally  true,  is  based  on  the 
1820  census  as  set  forth  in  the  United  States  Census  of  1900.  The  St.  Louis 
Enquirer  of  March  31,  1821,  gives  the  census  the  same  as  the  Missouri  Intelli- 
gencer, but  omits  Howard  county.  The  total  is  given  as  66,607,  and  the  actual 
sum  is  53,177.  The  difference  is  13,430,  which  is  practically  the  same  as  the 
Intelligencer  gives  for  Howard  county.  The  L^  S.  Census  of  1830  (p.  23  of  Schedule 
of  the  Census  of  1790,  1800,  1810  and  1820)  gives  the  same  population  of  Missouri 
by  counties  for  1820  as  the  U.  S.  Census  of  1900. 


70  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

were  given  twenty-six  delegates.  Howard  county,  the  largest 
and  most  populous  county  in  Missouri,  with  a  population  of 
13,427,  was  given  five  delegates;  St.  Louis  county,  with  a  popu- 
lation of  9,732,  was  given  eight  delegates;  and  Cape  Girardeau 
county,  with  a  population  of  5,965,  was  given  five  delegates. 
Pike  county,  with  a  population  of  3,747,  had  only  one  delegate; 
while  Washington,  with  a  population  of  3,000,  had  three  dele- 
gates. Cooper  county,  with  a  population  of  6,959,  had  three 
delegates;  and  Ste.  Genevieve  county,  with  a  population  of  5,048, 
had  four  delegates.  The  counties  that  were  apportioned  one 
delegate  for  every  1,300  of  their  population  or  less  were  Cape 
Girardeau,  Franklin,  New  Madrid,  St.  Louis,  Ste.  Genevieve, 
and  Washington.  All  these  were  south  of  the  Missouri  river, 
and  at  that  time  were  the  homes  of  the  leading  lawyers  and  pol- 
iticians of  Missouri.  A  delegate  from  Washington  county 
represented  only  1,000  persons;  from  New  Madrid,  1,148; 
from  Franklin,  1,189;  from  Cape  Girardeau,  1,193;  from  St. 
Louis,  1,216;  from  Ste.  Genevieve,  1,262;  and  from  St.  Charles, 
1,330:  while  a  delegate  from  Pike  county  represented  3,747 
persons;  from  Howard,  2,  685;  from  Cooper,  2,319;  from  Madison, 
2,047;  from  Jefferson,  1,835;  from  Lincoln,  1,662;  from  Mont- 
gomery, 1,537;  and  from  Wayne,  1,443.  It  is  seen  that,  ex- 
cepting Franklin  county,  most  of  the  counties  created  in  1818 
were  unjustly  dealt  with;  while  the  counties  erected  prior  to 
that  year  were  greatly  favored,  excepting  Howard,  which  con- 
tained one-fifth  of  the  population  of  Missouri  in  1820,  but  was 
apportioned  only  one-eighth  of  the  delegates  to  the  Convention. 
When  it  is  remembered  that  the  three  frontier  counties,  Howard, 
Cooper,  and  Pike,  contained  a  population  of  24,133,  and  re- 
ceived only  nine  delegates,  while  St.  Louis  county,  with  a  popu- 
lation of  9,732,  was  apportioned  eight  delegates,  the  glaring 
injustice  that  had  been  done  to  the  Boone's  Lick  and  Salt  River 
districts  is  plainly  perceived. 

One  might  object  to  these  statements  on  the  grounds  that 
the  apportionment  of  the  delegates  should  be  considered  from 
the  standpoint  of  the  free  white  male  inhabitants,  and  not  on 
the  basis  of  the  total  population,  including  whites  and  blacks. 
This  would  be  a  valid  objection,  considering  that  representatives 


Petitions  for  Statehood  and  Struggle  in  Congress.  71 

to  the  lower  house  of  the  Territorial  Legislature  had  been  ap- 
portioned on  this  basis  since  the  establishment  of  the  body  in 
1812,  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  statistics  regarding  the  white 
males  of  Missouri  in  1820  furnish  equal  support  to  what  we  have 
said.^^ 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  country  north  of  the  Missouri 
River  and  the  county  of  Cooper  had  increased  in  population  by 
leaps  and  bounds  since  the  census  of  1817.  Nor  was  this  a 
matter  of  mere  sectional  knowledge;  it  was  observed  and  com- 
mented upon  by  both  the  writers  and  the  newspapers  of  the  day.^^ 
The  inhabitants  of  the  Boone's  Lick  country  were  not  only 
aware  of  their  numbers,  but  both  Cooper  and  Howard  counties 
protested  strongly  against  the  small  number  of  convention 
delegates  apportioned  them  by  Congress.  They  not  only 
resented  being  so  unjustly  discriminated  against,  but  they 
especially  feared  that  their  section  would  not  receive  its  due 
consideration  in  the  many  questions  certain  to  arise  in  the  con- 
vention. One  of  the  main  issues  with  them,  an  important  issue 
all  over  the  territory,  was  the  location  of  the  permanent  seat  of 


"  Following  is  the  number  of  free  white  male  inhabitants  in  the  various 
counties  of  Missouri  in  1820  {U.  S.  Census,  1830,  p.  23  of  Schedule  of  United  States 
Census,  1790,  1800,  1810,  1820):  Cape  Girardeau,  2,658;  Cooper,  3,383;  Franklin, 
1,190;  Howard.  6,160;  Jefferson,  867;  Lincoln,  799;  Madison,  901;  Montgomery. 
1,425;  New  Madrid,  1,068;  Pike,  1,749;  St.  Charles,  1,857;  Ste.  Genevieve,  2,071; 
St.  Louis,  4,837;  Washington,  1,286;  Wayne,  750.  If  the  same  apportionment 
for  delegates  had  obtained  that  was  provided  for  representatives  of  the  lower 
house  of  the  general  assembly  by  the  law  of  February  1,  1817  {Mo.  Ter.  Laws, 
pp.  550f.),  i.  e.,  one  representative  for  every  five  hundred  free  white  male  inhabit- 
ants in  each  county,  there  would  have  been  fifty-four  delegates,  of  which  twenty- 
seven  would  have  been  elected  by  the  counties  north  of  the  Missouri  River  in- 
cluding Cooper  county.  Instead  of  this  there  was  apportioned  to  those  counties 
only  fifteen  delegates  out  of  a  total  of  forty-one.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Boone's 
Lick  Country,  including  Cooper  county  and  the  counties  north  of  the  Missouri 
River,  contained  about  one-half  of  both  the  total  population  and  the  free  white 
male  population  of  the  territory  in  1820.  This  section  contained  15,373  free 
white  male  inhabitants,  and  the  rest  of  the  territory  15,628;  the  former  had  a 
total  population  of  32,859  persons,  the  latter,  33,745. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  the  basis  of  apportionment  for  delegates  had  been  the 
same  that  had  been  provided  for  representatives  of  the  lower  house  of  the  terri- 
torial general  assembly  by  the  law  of  December  21,  1818,  (Mo.  Ter.  Laws,  pp. 
609f.)  i.  e.,  one  representative  for  every  seven  hundred  free  white  male  inhabitants 
in  each  county,  there  would  have  been  thirty-six,  perhaps  thirty-eight,  delegates; 
of  these  the  northern  part  of  ISIissoiu-i,  including  Cooper  county,  would  have 
elected  twenty-one. 

"Missouri  Gazette,  June  9,  1819;  Oct.  20.  1819;  Jan.  26,  1820;  Flint,  Recol- 
lections, p.  201;  Missouri  Intelligencer,  Apr.  1,  1820;  Apr.  22,  1820. 


72  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

government.  The  frontier  Missouri  River  people  wanted  the 
capitol  as  far  west  as  possible,  or  at  least  centrally  located. 
They  knew  that  the  other  districts  would  oppose  this.  On  such 
an  issue,  the  number  of  delegates  which  a  section  could  produce 
was  of  the  greatest  importance.  The  only  hope  left  to  the 
Boone's  Lick  people  was  the  calling  of  another  election  under  a 
new  apportionment,  as  provided  for  in  section  four  of  the  En- 
abling Act.^^  It  is  now  necessary  to  explain  as  far  as  possible 
why  such  an  unjust  apportionment  was  made;  one  of  the  first, 
but  not  the  last,  that  has  occurred  in  the  history  of  this  State. 
Scott,  in  a  letter  to  the  people  of  Missouri,  announcing 
his  candidacy  to   Congress,   which  appeared   in   the   St.   Louis 


'<  The  Missouri  Intelligencer  of  April  1,  1820,  gives  the  population  of  the 
Boone's  Lick  Country  as  12,000.  In  an  article  in  the  Missouri  Intelligencer  of 
April  22,  1820,  by  one  signing  himself  "Simon  Crabtree,"  the  following  general 
statements  are  made  that  show  how  conversant  the  Howard-Cooper  people  were 
with  the  facts  regarding  this  whole  matter:  Congress  made  the  apportionment 
of  delegates  on  the  basis  of  the  enumeration  of  1818;  by  the  enumeration  of  1819 
Howard  and  Cooper  counties  are  entitled  to  twelve  and  not  eight  delegates;  in 
1818  Howard  and  Cooper  had  4,128  free  white  males  which,  at  one  representative 
to  each  500,  gives  eight  representatives.  (Note:  There  was  no  enumeration 
made  in  1818,  but  the  following  statement  shows  that  there  was  one  made  in  1819. 
It  is  important  to  notice  this,  as  it  will  later  be  used  in  considering  Scott's  apology 
or  explanation  of  this  Congressional  apportionment  of  1820.)  Now  Howard 
has  3,862  free  white  males,  and  Cooper,  2,697,  which  would  allow  these  counties 
seven  and  five  delegates  respectively  (Note:  This  was  far  too  low,  as  has  been 
seen  above.);  in  order  to  get  the  seat  of  government  as  near  the  center  of  State 
as  possible,  these  counties  must  have  more  representatives;  the  Enabling  Act 
permits  the  first  convention  to  order  a  new  election,  and  Congress  inserted  this 
provision  knowing  that  eight  new  counties  had  been  made,  and  that  Missom-i 
Territory  north  of  the  Missouri  River  had  increased  in  population;  those  delegates 
favoring  the  seat  of  government  in  St.  Louis  will  oppose  a  new  election ;  therefore 
send  men  who  will  stand  out  for  this.  Pike  county  on  Salt  River  has  one  repre- 
sentative, and  it  possibly  should  have  five;  Lincoln  and  St.  Charles  counties 
should  also  have  more  representatives,  as  they  have  greatly  increased  since  1818 
(Note:  Although  Lincoln  county  was  slightly  discriminated  against,  the  injustice 
done  was  nothing  in  comparison  with  the  under  apportionment  of  Pike,  Howard, 
and  Cooper  counties;  and  St.  Charles  was  not  entitled  to  more  than  her  threo 
delegates,  according  to  the  United  States  Census  of  Missouri  of  1820.);  and  in 
short,  the  population  of  all  the  new  counties  erected  since  the  enumeration  of 
1818  was  guessed  at. 

In  the  same  issue  of  the  Intelligencer  appeared  an  article  by  David  Todd, 
announcing,  on  April  14,  1820,  his  candidacy  as  a  delegate  from  Howard  county. 
In  this,  Mr.  Todd  says  that  the  seat  of  government  should  be  centrally  locat<>d, 
but  that  "its  immediate  location  in  a  central  portion  cannot  be  reasonal>ly  an- 
ticipated, when  we  reflect  how  unequal  our  representation  is  when  compared  with 
the  lower  part  of  the  State;  but  efforts  will  be  requisite  to  insure  sudi  a  location 
even  within  a  few  years  hence." 

On  May  13,  1820.  an  anonymous  article  under  the  caption,  "A  Missourian,  " 
appeared  in  the  Missouri  Intelligencer  in    which  it  is  stated  that,  in  order  to  get 


Petitions  for  Statehood  and  Struggle  in  Congress.  73 

Enquirer,  August  2,  1820,  gave  quite  a  lengthy  explanation  or 
apology  for  the  apportionment.^^  It  is  important  in  reading 
this  explanation  of  Scott's  to  remember  that  he  was  running 
for  Congress.  In  the  first  place,  Scott  stated  that  the  appor- 
tionment of  delegates  was  in  his  hands,  and  that,  excepting 
three  counties,  the  only  enumeration  of  the  inhabitants  he  had 
was  the  census  of  1817,  which  was  of  little  value,  not  only  on 
account  of  its  age,  but  especially  because  eight  new  counties 
had  been  erected  in  1818  from  the  old  counties. ^^  In  short  he 
admitted  that  in  apportioning  the  delegates  for  twelve  coun- 
ties, ''it  was  neither  more  nor  less  than  a  matter  of  guess."  He 
excused  this  ignorance  on  his  part  by  citing  the  difficulties  of 
the  members  of  the  convention  when  they  apportioned  the 
state  senators  and  representatives  to  the  first  legislature,  who, 
through  lack  of  evidence  on  the  population  of  the  several  coun- 
ties, were  themselves  forced  to  compromise  on  this  point. 
Finally,  he  stated  that  he  had  provided  a  remedy  in  the  form 
of  a  new  election  and  a  new  convention  for  correcting  any  dis- 
crimination in  the  apportionment  of  delegates. 

This  remedy  for  unequal  apportionment  was  also  included 
in  the  fourth  section  of  the  Enabling  Act  of  Illinois."  The 
wording  in  both  acts  on  this  point  is  practically  the  same,  and 
the  slightest  examination  discloses  its  inherent  defect.  In 
effect,  it  placed  the  power  of  making  a  just  apportionment  in 
the  hands  of  those  who  had  been  favored  by  an  unjust  appor- 
tionment, and  in  usual  political  practice  such  a  provision  has 

the  seat  of  government  near  the  center  of  the  State,  it  will  be  necessary  to  call  a 
new  election,  wherein  Howard  and  Cooper  counties  would  have  more  represent- 
atives. And  on  May  20,  1820,  another  article  under  the  caption,  "A  Voter," 
states  that  the  greatest  thing  in  this  convention  is  to  be  "properly  represented 
according  to  the  population  of  the  several  counties." 

All  these  quotations  and  briefs  of  articles  that  appeared  in  the  Missouri 
Intelligencer  during  the  spring  of  1820  have  been  given  in  order  to  show  how 
keenly  aUve  and  wide  awake  the  Boone's  Lick  people  were  on  this  matter  of  the 
apportionment    of  the   delegates. 

«  This  address  of  Mr.  Scott's  also  appeared  in  the  Missouri  Intelligencer  of 
August   12,    1820. 

"  Scott,  in  his  letter,  in  referring  to  the  eight  old  counties  that  were  divided 
so  as  to  form  fifteen  counties,  probably  includes  Lawrence  county  among  the  eight. 
The  eight  new  counties  erected  in  1818  were  Wayne,  Madison,  Jefferson,  FrankUn, 
Cooper.  Pike,  Lincoln  and  Montgomery. 

"  Stat,  at  Large,  III,  428ff.     (Act  of  April  18,  1818). 


74  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

been  found  to  be  about  as  efficacious  as  a  prohibition  against 
gerrymandering  when  the  three  branches  of  the  government 
are  of  one  poUtical  machine.  The  mere  fact  that  the  convention 
did  not  apply  this  remedy  ought  not,  as  Scott  thought  it  should, 
exculpate  him  from  censure. 

That  part  of  Scott's  explanation  which  attempted  to 
excuse  his  poor  apportionment  by  citing  the  example  of  the 
delegates'  compromise  on  legislative  apportionment,  appears 
to  us  the  merest  sophistry.  Scott's  difficulty  in  apportioning 
delegates,  and  the  difficulty  of  the  convention  in  apportioning 
representatives  and  senators,  require  only  a  few  words  to  show 
their  dissimilarity.  Scott  may  have  been  in  ignorance  regarding 
the  population  of  most  of  Missouri's  counties,  but  it  has  been 
seen  from  articles  that  appeared  in  the  Missouri  Intelligencer 
that  the  delegates  from  Howard  and  Cooper  at  least  knew  ap- 
proximately, if  not  exactly,  the  total  number  of  white  males  in 
these  two  counties  in  1819.  There  is  no  record  besides  Scott's 
statement  that  the  convention  delegates  were  embarrassed  and 
finally  forced  to  compromise  on  the  apportionment  of  repre- 
sentatives and  senators,  but  if  such  a  condition  existed  it  can 
easily  be  explained  on  the  basis  of  the  conflicting  wishes  of  the 
several  groups  of  delegates  who  were  looking  out  for  their  own 
interests,  perhaps  at  the  expense  of  a  just  apportionment. 
The  compromise  in  the  convention,  if  there  was  one,  was  more 
probably  based  on  interest  than  on  ignorance;  and  the  fact 
that  certain  counties  had  more  delegates  than  they  were  en- 
titled to  probably  helped  to  render  a  just  apportionment  impos- 
sible. But  even  though  laboring  under  this  difficulty,  there 
was  a  far  closer  approximation  to  true  representation  according 
to  population  as  followed  by  the  Convention  than  by  Scott. ^^ 
In  fact,  considering  the  overwhelming  strength  of  the  delegates 
from  those  counties  containing  a  minority  of.  the  inhabitants, 
as  opposed  by  the  comparatively  few  delegates  from  such 
populous  counties  as  Howard,  Cooper,  and  Pike,  it  is  remark- 


"  See  Schedule  to  Constitution  of  1820,  sec.  7.  Following  is  a  list  of  the 
counties  of  Missouri  in  1820,  and  the  number  of  delegates  apportioned  to  each 
by  Scott,  and  the  numb(T  of  representatives  in  the  first  State  Legislature  appor- 
tioned to  each  by  th(!  convention,  together  with  the  number  of  delegates  that 
each  county  would  have  had  if  either  the  session  act  of  the  Missouri  Territorial 


Petitions  for  Statehood  and  Struggle  in  Congress.  75 


able  that  such  a  just  apportionment  was  made  by  the  convention. 
That  this  body  knew  the  approximate  population  of  each  county 
is  evident  from  the  number  of  representatives  assigned  to  the 
several  counties.  In  only  five  counties  did  a  representative 
represent  less  than  fifteen  hundred  persons,  and  these  five 
counties  elected  only  twelve  representatives  out  of  a  total  of 
thirty-nine.  In  only  one  county  did  a  representative  represent 
over  two  thousand  persons,  and  this  was  in  the  case  of  Madison, 
with  its  population  of  2,047,  to  which  was  allotted  one  repre- 
sentative. All  the  other  counties  were  given  one  representative 
on  a  basis  of  population  ranging  from  1500  to  1873  persons.  A 
representative  from  St.  Louis  county  represented  1,622  persons, 
and  from  Howard  county  1,678.  Such  an  equality  would  have 
been  remarkable  under  more  propitious  circumstances,  and 
stands  out  in  striking  contrast  to  the  apportionment  in  the 
Enabling  Act. 


Legislature  of  February  1,  1817,  or  that  of  December  21,  1818,  had  been  followed 
in  this  apportionment.  C/.  this  with  the  population  of  the  several  counties  as 
set  forth  in  note  91,  supra. 


Counties. 


Cape  Girardeau 

Cooper 

Franklin 

Howard 

Jefferson 

Lincoln 

Madison 

Montgomery .  .  . 
New  Madrid.  .  . 

Pike 

St.  Charles 

Ste.  Genevieve. 

St.  Louis 

Washington. .  .  . 
Wayne 

Totals 


Delegates,  if 
apportioned 

by  act  of 
Missouri 

Legislature 
Feb.  1,  1817. 


5 
6 
2 
12 
1 
1 
1 
2 
2 
3 
3 
4 
9 
2 
1 


Delegates,  if 

apportioned 

by  act  of 

Missouri 

Legislature 

Dec.  21.  1818. 


54 


3 

4 

1 

8 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2(3) 

6(7) 

1 

1 


Delegates  to 

Convention 

by  act  of 

Congress, 

March  6, 

1820. 


36 


Represent- 
atives in 
First  State 
Legislature. 


41 


43 


76  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

In  concluding  this  matter  of  the  apportionment  of  the 
delegates,  it  may  be  said  that  it  could  hardly  have  been  more 
unjust  to  certain  counties;  that  Scott's  apology  or  explanation 
is  more  plausible  before  than  after  examination;  that  his  ignor- 
ance of  the  development  and  increase  of  population  in  the 
Boone's  Lick  and  Salt  River  countries  was  almost  inexcusable, 
considering  the  publication  of  four  newspapers  in  Missouri  in 
1819;  and,  finally,  that  his  guessing  at  the  apportioning  of  the 
delegates  is  remarkable,  if  nothing  more,  in  its  inaccuracy, 
being  favorable  towards  the  Mississippi  River  counties  and  their 
dependencies,  and  unfavorable  to  the  northern  and  western 
frontier  centers  of  population. 

The  discussion  of  the  remainder  of  section  three  of  the 
Enabling  Act  will  now  be  resumed.  The  delegates  were  to  be 
elected  on  the  first  Monday  and  two  succeeding  days  of  the 
following  May,  and  the  election  was  to  be  conducted  in  the  same 
manner  as  those  for  representa.tives  to  the  General  Assembly. 

Section  four  provided  that  the  delegates  should  meet  in 
convention  at  the  seat  of  government  on  the  second  Monday 
of  the  following  June  and  were  given  the  privilege  of  adjourning 
to  another  place,  and  also  of  holding  another  election  and  ap- 
portionment of  delegates  if  they  saw  fit  to  do  so.  This  con- 
vention was  given  power  **to  form  a  Constitution  and  state 
government  for  the  people  within  the  said  territory"  of  Mis- 
souri, provided:  1st,  that  the  same  "shall  be  republican"  and 
"not  repugnant  to  the  constitution  of  the  United  States;"  2d, 
that  the  state  legislature  "shall  never  interfere  with  the  primary 
disposal  of  the  soil  of  the  United  States,"  etc.;  3d,  that  "no  tax 
shall  be  imposed  on  lands,  the  property  of  the  United  States;" 
and  4th,  that  "in  no  case  shall  non-resident  proprietors  be  taxed 
higher  than  residents."  This  entire  section  is  practically  the 
same  as  that  of  the  Illinois  Enabling  Act  of  April  18,  1818.^^ 

Section  five  provided  that  "until  the  next  general  census 
shall  be  taken,  the  said  State  shall  be  entitled  to  one  repre- 
sentative in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States." 

In  section  six  were  set  forth  five  propositions  for  the  ac- 
ceptance or  rejection  of  the  convention.     If  accepted  by  that 


»»  Stat,  at  Large,  III.  pp.  42Sfr. 


Petitions  for  Statehood  and  Struggle  in  Congress.  11 

body  they  are  to  be  binding  upon  the  United  States.  The 
first  proposition  provided  a  grant  to  the  State  of  the  sixteenth 
section  of  land  or  its  equivalent  in  each  township  for  the  use 
of  schools  in  that  township.  The  Territorial  General  Assembly 
in  its  third  and  sixth  resolutions  of  November  22,  1818,  had 
requested  Missouri's  delegate  in  Congress  to  "use  his  exertions 
to  procure"  from  Congress  a  donation  of  "all  vacant  lots  and 
pieces  of  ground,  in  towns  or  villages  in  which  they  lie,  for 
the  support  of  schools,"  and  also  two  per  cent  of  the  sales  of 
public  lands  in  Missouri  "for  the  support  of  the  schools  in 
the  State."  In  this  instance  Congress  adhered  to  its  general 
custom  of  granting  the  sixteenth  section  of  land  in  each  town- 
ship for  the  support  of  schools.  Resting  largely  on  this  foun- 
dation grant  and  other  Congressional  grants  is  the  present  public 
school  system  of  Missouri,  with  its  State  school  fund  which  ranks 
among  the  largest  of  the  several  States.  This  grant  was  the 
origin  of  the  "township  school  fund."  ^°*^  General  regulations 
relating  to  this  grant  w^ere  included  in  Article  VI  of  the  Missouri 
Constitution  of  1820. 

The  second  proposition  provided  a  grant  by  the  national 
government  to  Missouri  of  "all  salt  springs,  not  exceeding  twelve 
in  number,  with  six  sections  of  land  adjoining  each"  for  the  use 
of  this  State.  This  grant  w^as  placed  under  the  regulation  of 
the  State  Legislature  and  it  was  provided  "that  the  legislature 
shall  never  sell  or  lease  the  same,  at  any  one  time,  for  a  longer 
period  than  ten  years,  without  the  consent  of  Congress."  The 
Missouri  Territorial  Legislature  on  November  22,  1818,  had 
in  its  first  resolution  asked  the  following  donation  from  Con- 
gress: "Lead  mines,  with  one  section  of  land  adjoining  to 
each,  and  salt  springs,  with  four  sections  of  land  adjoining  each, 
to  be  leased  for  the  use  of  the  State."  Delegate  Scott  said  that 
he  asked  for  a  grant  of  some  of  the  numerous  lead  mines  of 
Missouri,  but  that  this  request  was  refused. ^^^ 

»••  Encyc.  Hist.  Mo.  V.  504. 

»"  St.  Louis  Enquirer,  Aug.  2,  1820.  Letter  of  John  Scott  to  the  people 
of  Missouri  in  his  candidacy  to  Congress.  Following  is  a  part  of  this  document, 
which  has  already  been  referred  to: 

"At  the  time  of  passing  the  law  authorizing  us  to  form  a  constitution  and 
assume  a  state  government,  I  perhaps  had  unexpected  success  in  obtaining  liberal 
grants,  and  donations  to  the  state,  for  in  addition  to  the  grants  usually  made  to 


78  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

Congress  provided  in  its  third  proposition  a  grant  of  five 
per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  pubHc  lands  in  Mis- 
souri made  after  January  1,  1821,  "for  making  public  roads 
and  canals."  Of  this  sum,  three-fifths  was  under  the  direction 
of  the  state  legislature  for  these  objects  within  the  State;  and 
two-fifths  under  Congress  for  building  highways  leading  to  this 
State.  It  is  interesting  to  note  in  this  connection  the  requests 
made  by  the  Missouri  Territorial  Legislature  of  1818.  Be- 
sides the  three  per  cent  grant  under  the  direction  of  the  Legis- 
lature "for  opening  roads  and  canals,  and  building  bridges, 
within  the  State,"  that  body  also  asked  for  a  nine  per  cent  grant 
under  the  direction  of  Congress  to  be  applied  as  follows:  1st, 
one  per  cent  "for  perfecting  the  water  communications  between 
the  Mississippi  and  lake  [sic]  Michigan,  by  the  Illinois  and 
Ouisconsin  rivers;"  2d,  six  per  cent  "for  continuing  the  national 
western  turnpike  road,  from  Wheeling,  on  the  Ohio,  to  Saint 
Louis;"  and  3d,  two  per  cent  "for  opening  a  road  direct  from 
Saint  Louis  to  New  Orleans."  From  this  is  seen  the  great 
amount  of  concern  that  was  centered  in  1818  in  Missouri  over 
this  question  of  roads  and  canals.     Considering  the  great  extent 


new  states  of  two  per  cent  out  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  to  be  laid  out  in  roads 
and  canals  leading  to  the  state,  and  three  per  cent  from  the  same  sales,  to  be 
appropriated  to  objects  of  Internal  improvement  within  the  state  exclusively  under 
the  control  of  our  own  legislature,  together  with  one  section  of  land  in  each  town- 
ship, for  the  use  of  schools  in  these  townships  respectively,  and  the  townships  of 
land  given  for  the  erection  and  support  of  a  state  university,  I  was  so  fortvmate 
as  to  obtain  an  extraordinary  donation  of  twelve  salt  springs  to  be  selected  by 
the  legislature,  with  six  sections  of  land  attached  to  each,  to  be  used  for  state 
purposes.  Those  springs  I  hope,  if  prudently,  economically  and  judiciously 
managed,  will  form  a  source  of  revenue  to  no  small  amount,  the  happy  eirects  of 
which  will  be  at  no  distant  period  to  lighten  the  taxes,  and  burthens  of  the  people. 
— I  also  selected  other  grants  for  state  purposes,  sucli  as  an  additional  per  cent 
for  purposes  both  of  external  and  internal  imjirovement  and  a  portion  of  the 
numerous  load  mines  with  whicli  o>ir  country  abounds;  these  however  were  re- 
fused, but  the  residue  of  the  salt  springs,  and  the  U>a(l  mint's,  after  the  adjourn- 
ment of  the  several  private  claims,  will  tloubtless  he  disposeti  of  as  otlier  public 
lands,  and  l)ecom(;  subject  to  individual  enterprise,  thereby  increasing  our  sources 
of  commerce;,  and  lessen  to  the  people,  the  price  of  one  of  the  most  important 
necessaries   of  life." 

Regarding  Hcott's  remarkable  success  In  obtaining  so  many  salt  springs,  it 
might  be  noted  that  the  si^cond  proposition  in  the  sixth  si'ction  of  tlie  Illinois 
Enabling  Act  a  grant  was  made  to  Illinois  of  all  tlie  .salt  springs  in  that  stati\ 
together  with  the  land  reserved  for  tlu;  use  of  same.        (Stat,  at  Lanjc,  III.  •12SIT.) 

We  are  not  conv»Tsant  witii  any  work  that  treats  of  the  iiistory  of  these  salt 
springs.  Tlu;  Encyclopedia  of  the  Ilistnr]/  of  Missouri,  V.  477,  contains  a  para- 
graph on   th(!  salt  springs  and   "Saline   Lands." 


Petitions  for  Statehood  and  Struggle  in  Congress.  79 

of  the  public  domain  at  that  time,  it  is  perhaps  true  that  more 
was  asked  for  roads  than  for  education. ^^^ 

Congress  granted  to  this  State,  in  its  fourth  proposition, 
"four  entire  sections  of  land"  "for  the  purpose  of  fixing  their 
seat  of  government  thereon."  The  Missouri  Territorial  Legis- 
lature in  1818  had  asked  Congress  for  a  grant  of  "one  entire 
township,  to  be  disposed  of  as  the  legislature  of  the  State  shall 
direct,  for  the  purpose  of  raising  a  fund  for  erecting  State  build- 
ings, at  the  permanent  seat  of  government."  This  rather  ex- 
travagant request  seems  to  have  met  with  little  favor  in  Congress, 
and  was  pared  down  to  four  sections  of  public  land  to  be  used 
for  this  purpose. 

The  fifth  and  last  proposition  of  Congress  contained  a 
grant  of  thirty-six  sections  of  land  "together  with  the  other  lands 
heretofore  reserved  for  that  purpose"  for  the  use  of  a  seminary 
of  learning.  The  management  of  this  grant  was  vested  in  the 
State  Legislature,  and  in  section  two  of  article  VI  of  the  Mis- 
souri Constitution  of  1820,  general  regulations  were  set  forth 
regarding  it.^°^  The  grant  for  a  university  or  seminary  of  learn- 
ing is  the  same  as  was  requested  of  Congress  by  the  territorial 
legislature  of  1818.  Included  under  this  fifth  proposition  were 
two  provisos  which  were  ratified  by  the  Missouri  constitutional 
convention  of  1820  in  "An  Ordinance"  of  acceptance  on  July 
19,  1820.  In  general,  these  two  provisos  were:  1st,  that  these 
five  propositions  were  conditional  on  the  consent  of  the  Mis- 
souri  constitutional   convention   providing   by   ordinance   that 


102  "This  is  a  state  fund  made  up  of  the  proceeds  of  3  per  cent  of  all  sales  of 
United  States  public  lands  sold  in  the  territory  and  State  of  ]Missouri,  which  by 
the  act  of  Congress  of  1822  were  to  be  paid  over  to  the  State  and  used  for  the 
construction  of  roads  and  canals,  tliree-fifths  on  works  leading  to  the  State.  The 
receipts  are  small— only  S597  in  1897  and  $228  in  1898.  The  money  is  equally 
divided  between  the  counties."     Ibid.,   V.   366. 

In  the  Enabling  Act  of  Illinois,  Congress  donated  two  per  cent  of  the  sale 
of  public  lands  in  that  State  to  be  used  for  making  roads  leading  to  the  new  state, 
and  this  was  placed  under  the  regulation  of  Congress;  and  three  per  cent  was  placed 
under  the  legislature  of  Illinois  for  the  encouragement  of  learning,  of  which  sum 
one-sixth  was  for  a  college  or  university.      {Stat,  at  Large,  III.,  42SflF.) 

1"'  The  Encyclopedia  of  the  History  oj  Missouri,  VI.  776,  in  an  article  on  the 
University  of  Missouri,  states  that  one  of  the  permanent  interest-bearing  endow- 
ments of  that  institution  is  the  following:  "Proceeds  of  sales  of  forty-six  thousand 
acres  of  seminary  lands  donated  by  Congress  March  6,  1820,  invested  in  a  State 
certificate  of  indebtedness  at  six  per  cent  per  annum  interest — §122,000.00." 

A  similar  grant  was  made  to  Illinois.      (See  Stat,  at  Large,  III.  428fl.) 


80  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

all  public  lands  of  United  States  sold  after  January  1,  1821, 
should  be  exempt  from  all  state,  county  or  township  taxes  for 
five  years  from  date  of  sale;  and  2d,  that  bounty  lands  granted 
for  military  services  during  the  war  of  1812  should  be  exempt 
from  taxes  for  three  years  from  date  of  the  patents  providing 
these  lands  are  held  by  the  patentees  or  their  heirs. 

Section  seven  of  the  Enabling  Act  provided  that  an  au- 
thenticated copy  of  the  constitution  of  Missouri  when  framed, 
be  transmitted  to  Congress.  This  was  duly  done  by  the  Con- 
vention of  1820. 

The  last  section  of  this  act,  section  eight,  contained  the 
famous  First  Missouri  Compromise,  which  has  already  been 
discussed;  and  also  provided  a  brief  fugitive  slave  enactment. 


CHAPTER  III. 
POPULAR  OPINION  IN  MISSOURI,  1819. 

It  is  our  purpose  in  this  chapter  to  set  forth  the  sentiment 
that  prevailed  in  Missouri  following  the  failure  of  the  Fifteenth 
Congress  in  its  second  session  (1818-1819)  to  pass  an  Enabling 
Act  for  Missouri;  in  the  next  chapter  we  will  consider  the  elec- 
tion of  delegates  to  the  Missouri  constitutional  convention  of 
1820.  The  one  is  a  study  of  the  wave  of  protest  and  indigna- 
tion that  swept  over  Missouri  after  the  House  of  Representatives 
during  the  winter  of  1819  had  attempted  to  impose  a  slavery 
restriction  clause  on  that  territory  as  a  requisite  for  permission 
to  form  a  state  constitution;  the  other  is  not  only  a  consideration 
of  the  election  of  delegates  to  Missouri's  first  constitutional  con- 
vention, but  also  includes  a  treatment  of  the  sentiment  which 
prevailed  in  Missouri  Territory  in  1820  on  the  question  of 
slavery.  The  former  deals  with  Missouri's  attitude  towards 
Congress  when  that  body  attempted  slavery  restriction  in  Mis- 
souri: the  latter  considers,  among  other  things,  Missouri's  atti- 
tude towards  slavery  itself. 

The  two  attitudes  are  to  a  certain  degree  distinct,  but  the 
influence  of  the  one  on  the  other  is  always  present.  Questions 
arise  that  illustrate  this  latter  point  with  clearness.  For 
example:  how  m.uch  of  Missouri's  protest  in  1819  against  any 
Congressional  restriction  of  slavery  in  this  State  was  based  on 
Missouri's  constitutional  scruples,  and  how  much  rested  on  her 
desire  and  determination  to  perpetuate  slavery  within  her 
boundaries?  or:  to  what  extent  was  Missouri's  election  of  pro- 
slavery  and  anti-restriction  slavery'  delegates  to  her  constitu- 
tional convention  the  result  of  her  indignation  against  the 
attempt  made  by  Congress  to  impose  a  slavery  restriction  on 
this  State?  We  believe,  however,  that  although  thus  closely 
related,  these  two  subjects  logically  demand  separate  consid- 
eration. 

In  this  chapter  we  will  describe  the  sentiment  in  Missouri 
in   1819  as  revealed   (1)   in  the  resolutions  adopted  at  various 

M  S — 6  (81) 


82  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

public  meetings,  (2)  in  the  toasts  drunk  at  public  celebrations 
and  dinners,  (3)  in  the  presentments  of  Grand  Juries,  (4)  in  the 
newspaper  editorials,  and  (5)  in  the  individual  articles  that  ap- 
peared over  noms-de-guerre.  These  are  summarized,  and  from 
them  together  with  the  accounts  of  travelers  in  Missouri  during 
that  time  are  reached  certain,  definite  conclusions  on  the  subject 
at  hand.^ 

One  of  the  most  reliable  sources  of  information  showing  the 
sentiment  in  Missouri  over  the  action  of  Congress  during  its 
session  of  1818-1819,  is  the  protests  and  resolutions  drawn  up 
and  adopted  at  those  public  meetings,  scattered  over  the  Ter- 
ritory, that  were  assembled  solely  for  this  purpose.  These 
public  meetings  were  held  from  April  to  September  of  1819  in 
the  seven  counties  of  Montgomery,  St.  Louis,  Howard,^  Wash- 
ington, Ste.  Genevieve,  New  Madrid  and  Cape  Girardeau. 
No  similar  bodies  are  met  with  during  the  winter  of  1820,^  but 
in  the  spring  of  that  year  public  gatherings  again  made  their 
appearance  in  Missouri.  These  latter  meetings  did  not,  how- 
ever, consider  the  past  action  of  Congress,  except  in  a  very 
general  way,  but  devoted  their  attention  to  the  discussion  of 
slavery  within  the  proposed  State  and  to  the  election  of  delegates 
to  the  constitutional  convention.  The  popular  gatherings  of 
1819  were  almost  wholly  bodies  that  protested  against  the  de- 
layed admission  of  Missouri,  and  directed  their  protests  against 
the  majority  in  the  House  of  Representatives  who  had  attempted 
restricting  slavery  in  the  new  state.  Naturally  the  subject  of 
slavery  in  se  was  discussed  and  sometimes  included  in  the 
declarations  of  these  meetings,  and  some  light  on  the  sentiment 
in  Missouri  on  slavery  can  be  obtained  from  their  expressed 


'  The  satisfactory  and  comprehensive  character  of  the  source  material  con- 
sulted obviates  our  referring  to  any  secondary  authority.  Such  secondary  au- 
thorities as  appear  in  foot-notes  in  the  conclusions  arc  mentioned  only  incidentally, 
and  not  as  substantiating  or  negativing  any  conclusion  drawn  by  us. 

2  The  public  meeting  of  Howard  county  which  was  held  in  Franklin,  Mis- 
souri, represented  the  people  of  the  entire  Boone's  Lick  Country  including  Cooper 
county. 

»  This  is  not  remarkable  as  the  inhabitants  of  Missouri  entertained  the  hope 
that  the  Congress  of  1<S1<)-1.S2()  would  pass  an  enabling  act  for  this  State  and  not 
repeat  the  history  of  the  session  of  1818-181*).  They  undoubtedly  had  decided 
to  wait  till  the  end  of  the  1819-20  session  before  taking  any  action,  and  con- 
sidering tlieir  recent  activity  in  this  line  during  the  preceding  summer,  this  was 
quite  a  reasonable  course  to  follow. 


Popular  Opinion  in  Missouri,  J  SID.  83 

language;  but  it  must  be  emphasized  here  that  these  declarations 
on  their  surface  were  essentially  protests  against  Congressional 
restriction.  Whatever  statements  they  made  on  the  question 
of  slavery  in  se  are  to  be  very  carefully  accepted  or  rejected 
and  then  only  after  strict  historical  criticism.  Their  greatest 
value  on  this  point  lies  in  their  proper  interpretation  by  the 
historian  after  a  survey  of  the  entire  field  of  related  facts  has 
been  made. 

The  first  public  meeting  of  this  kind  was  held  on  the  28th 
of  April,  1819  by  the  citizens  of  Montgomery  county.'*  After 
much  discussion  three  declarations  and  four  resolutions  were 
unanimously  adopted.  They  declared  that  Missouri  was 
entitled  to  admission  under  both  the  United  States  constitution 
and  the  treaty  of  cession,  and  that  the  only  legal  restriction 
that  was  applicable  was  that  her  state  constitution  should  be 
republican;  that  Congress  had  hitherto  appeared  to  them  to  be 
the  "guardian  of  the  inherent  principles  of  freedom"  but  that 
the  last  House  of  Representatives  had  regarded  Missouri  "with 
the  jealous  eye  of  a  partial  step  mother,"  and  that  Alabama 
had  been  admitted  while  this  territory  had  been  refused,  unless 
its  people  "would  stoop  to  a  condition,  which  degrades  them 
below  the  rank  of  free  men,  and  lays  the  foundation  of  [a] 
slavery  more  abject  than  that  which  Congress  pretends  to  be 
so  zealous  to  reform;"  that  they  viewed  the  action  of  the  late 
House  of  Representatives  as  tantamount  to  a  declaration  "that 
they  have  a  right  to  legislate  for  us  in  all  cases  whatsoever,  a 
principle  which  United  America  resisted  even  to  blood,  in  her 
glorious  struggle  for  independence."  They  therefore  resolved 
that  the  attempted  restriction  on  Missouri's  admission  was  "a 
daring  stretch  of  power,  an  usurpation  of  our  most  sacred 
rights,  unprecedented,  unconstitutional,  and  in  open  violation 
of  the  3d  article  of  the  treaty  of  cession  entered  into  with  France ;" 
that  they  would  "never  cease  to  resist  with  firmness  all  such 
encroachments  upon  their  rights"  by  every  possible  consti- 
tutional means;"  that  they  regretted  the  necessity  causing  this 
protest,  but  duty  impelled  them  to  protect  their  constitution 
against  "foreign  or  domestic  foes;"  that  the  present  proceedings 

*  Mo.  Gaz.,  May  19,  1819;  St.  Louis  Enq.,  May  12,  1819. 


84  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

be  printed  in  the  St.  Louis  papers.  This  meeting  was  a  duly 
organized  body  with  a  president  or  chairman  and  a  secretary, 
as  were  all  the  other  meetings.  It  dealt  with  statehood  and 
protested  against  congressional  restriction  being  placed  on  Mis- 
souri's admission.  Only  once  is  slavery  referred  to:  in  the  second 
declaration  doubt  is  cast  on  the  zeal  of  Congress  in  its  reforms 
of  slavery.  However  great  their  indignation,  the  framers  of 
this  protest  were  remarkably  conservative  and  moderate  in 
their  language. 

The  second  public  meeting  of  protest  was  held  in  the  city  of 
St.  Louis  on  May  15,  1819,  and  represented  both  the  city  and 
county  of  that  name.^  The  meeting  was  held  at  the  court  house 
and  met  "pursuant  to  the  request  contained  in  the  presentment  of 
the  Grand  Jury  of  the  last  Superior  Court."  A  large  assem- 
blage of  both  French  and  American  citizens  of  note  were  in  at- 
tendance, as  well  as  strangers.  The  importance  of  this  meeting 
is  easily  seen  not  only  in  the  large  body  of  citizens  present  but 
also  in  the  men  who  guided  it.  Colonel  Alexander  McNair 
was  its  president  and  the  Honorable  David  Barton  secretary; 
both  of  these  were  delegates  to  the  constitutional  convention 
of  1820,  and  later  the  one  was  elected  Missouri's  first  State 
Governor,  the  other  one  of  her  first  United  States  Senators. 
Thomas  Hart  Benton,  Missouri's  United  States  Senator  for 
thirty  years,  was  the  principal  speaker,  and  laid  before  the 
meeting  the  first  six  resolutions,  which  were  unanimously 
adopted  after  their  phraseology  had  been  adjusted  by  such 
eminent  men  as  William  C.  Carr,  Henry  Geyer,  Edward  Bates, 
and  Joshua  Barton. 

The  first  resolution  adopted  declared:  "That  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  have  no  right  to  control  the  provisions  of  a 
state  constitution,  except  to  preserve  its  republican  character."  ® 


'  The  (St.  Louis)  Mo.  Gaz.,  of  May  19,  1819.  contains  a  copy  of  the  nine 
resolutions  adopted  together  with  a  brief  account  of  tlie  meeting  and  its  organiza- 
tion. A  very  complete  account  of  this  meeting,  together  with  Thomas  Hart 
Benton's  speech  delivered  in  defense  of  the  resolutions  he  submitted  for  the 
ratification  of  the  meeting,  and  also  a  copy  of  the  resolutions  adopted,  are  found 
in  the  St.  Louis  Enq.,  of  May   19,   1819. 

»  Benton's  resolutions  are  not  given  verbatim  in  the  report  of  the  meeting 
by  the  Enquirer  of  May  19,  1819,  but  only  what  his  resolutions  "imported." 
The  import  of  Benton's  six  resolutions  is  the  same  as  the  first  six  adopted. 


Popular  Opinio?i  in  Missouri^  1819.  85 

The  second  resolution  stated  that  to  prohibit  slavery  in  Mis- 
souri would  be  "equally  contrary  to  the  rights  of  the  State,  and 
to  the  welfare  of  the  slaves  themselves."  ^  The  third  resolu- 
tion declared  Missouri's  population  so  much  exceeded  that  of 
other  territories  when  admitted  that  the  obstruction  of  the 
majority  in  the  last  House  of  Representatives  to  admitting  her 
"was  an  outrage  on  the  principles  of  the  American  Constitution, 
and  a  direct  infraction  of  the  third  article  of  the  treaty  of 
cession."  ^  The  fourth  resolution  stated:  "That  the  right  of 
the  Missouri  territory  to  be  admitted  into  the  union  of  the 
states,  depends  not  upon  the  will  of  Congress,  but  upon  the 
treaty  of  cession,  and  the  principles  of  the  federal  constitution." 
The  fifth  resolution  is  so  startling  and  bold  in  its  language  that 
it  is  given  here  in  full:  "5th  Resolves,  That  the  people  of  this 
territory  have  a  right  to  meet  in  convention  by  their  own  au- 
thority, and  to  form  a  constitution  and  state  government, 
whenever  they  shall  deem  it  expedient  to  do  so,  and  that  a  second 
determination  on  the  part  of  Congress  to  refuse  them  admittance 
upon  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  states,  will  make  it  ex- 


'  Benton  in  his  argument  supporting  this  resolution  said  the  proposed  slavery 
restriction  infringed  Missoin-i's  sovereignty  as  protected  by  both  the  Federal 
constitution  and  the  treaty  of  cession,  and  denied  to  Missourians  the  right  of 
"deciding  the  question  of  slavery  according  to  their  own  will."  He  added  that 
it  was  "unfriendly  to  the  slaves  themselves"  as  it  tended  to  confine  them  to  the 
South  where  their  condition  was  notoriously  harsher  and  more  severe  than  in  the 
North.  He  said  "that  the  effect  of  the  restriction  was  not  to  diminish  the  quantum 
of  slavery  in  the  Repubhc,"  as  in  Illinois  where  a  similar  restriction  applied  it 
had  not  given  liberty  to  the  slaves  and  "a  free  black  was  [a]  rare  bird  there,  unless 
he  was  a  refugee  from  a  neighboring  State."  Nor  was  the  restriction  of  any 
value  in  Illinois,  he  said,  as  applied  "to  those  which  it  intended  should  be  born 
free"  since  "they  were  not  born  there,  but  in  the  south,  to  which  their  mothers 
are  carried  before  delivery."  He  concluded  his  argument  on  this  resolution  by 
saying  that  if  the  restrictions  went  "forward  to  the  time  (if  such  a  time  was  ahead) 
when  the  abolition  of  slavery  throughout  the  Republic  should  be  the  order  of  the 
day"  then  "it  might  be  that  the  people  of  Missouri  would  go  voluntarily  as  far 

as  any  other  portion  of  the  union:  but  until  that  time  arrives,  no  process 

of  reasoning  can  make  it  right  that  they  should  be  forced  to  the  surrender  of  their 
slaves"  etc. 

*  Benton  supported  this  resolution  by  stating:  (1)  that  Missoiu-i's  popula- 
tion was  larger  than  that  of  the  states  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Tennessee,  and 
Mississippi  when  admitted;  (2)  that  ^lissouri's  training  as  a  territory  better 
justified  her  admission  than  that  of  other  territories:  (3)  that  the  character  of 
Missouri's  settlers  from  Tennessee,  Kentucky,  and  the  mother  states  of  these 
two  was  high  enough  for  governing  either  themselves  or  others;  and  (4)  that 
both  the  constitution  and  the  treaty  of  cession  made  it  imperative  upon  Congress 
to  admit  Missouri. 


86  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

pedient  to  exercise  that  right."  ^  Continuing  on  this  point  the 
sixth  resolution  stated:  "That  a  constitution  so  formed  cannot 
be  disapproved  by  Congress  for  any  other  cause,  than  for  anti- 
repubUcan  features;  and  if  disapproved  upon  any  other  pretext, 
it  will  be  equivalent  to  an  attempt  to  exclude  the  territory  of 
Missouri  from  the  federation  of  the  states."  ^°  Benton  in  con- 
cluding his  speech  favoring  these  six  resolutions  "begged  the 
meeting  to  consider  well  the  resolutions  which  were  ofifered. 
The  eyes  of  the  American  people  were  upon  them.  They  were, 
the  first  to  whose  lot  it  had  fallen  to  make  a  fair  and  regular 
stand  against  the  encroachment  of  Congress  upon  the  Sovereignty 
of  the  States.  The  resolutions  were  intended  to  be  mild  in 
their  language,  strong  in  their  import;  and  if  once  adopted,  he 
knew  that  they  would  never  be  lightly  abandoned."  The  St. 
Louis  Enquirer  stated  that  "several  citizens  were  ready  to 
speak"  in  support  of  these  resolutions  after  they  had  been  read ; 
"but  no  one"  spoke  against  them  and  they  were  "unanimously 
passed."  A  resolution  approving  Scott's  conduct  in  Congress 
in  defending  Missouri  was  proposed  by  David  Barton  and  was 
unanimously  passed.  Carr  submitted  a  resolution  recom- 
mending similar  meetings  throughout  the  Territory.  Some 
opposed  this  on  the  ground  that  although  favoring  its  object 
they  wished  all  such  meetings  "to  be  so  entirely  the  spontaneous 
act  of  the  people,  as  not  even  to  be  under  the  influence  of  a 
request."  The  resolution  was,  however,  passed  by  a  consider- 
able majority.     The  final   resolution  adopted  at   this  meeting 


•Benton  said  in  support  of  the  right  of  Missouri  to  hold  a  constitutional 
convention  without  the  authority  of  a  previous  law  that  examples  of  such  action 
could  be  found  in  the  convention  of  the  original  colonies  when  they  withdrew 
from  England  and  also  in  the  case  of  Tennessee  in  1796.  In  regard  to  the  exp<'- 
diency  of  calling  a  convention,  Benton  favored  waiting  the  action  of  the  next  ses- 
sion of  Congress,  and  if  that  body  repeated  the  history  of  the  last  session,  then 
"as  one  of  the  people  he  was  ready  to  declare  himself  now,  and  to  stand  com- 
mitted from  this  day  forth  upon  the  issue  of  the  declaration:  He  would  be  Jor 
the  call  oj  the  convention,  etc."  Benton  then  proceeded  to  attack  the  selfish  and 
political  motives  that  had  actuated  the  majority  of  the  last  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives. 

'•  Benton  strongly  endorsed  this  scheme  and  said  that  Congress  would  have 
to  accept  such  a  Constitution  as  it  had  done  with  the  Tennessee  Constitution 
of  1796.  He  added:  "No  matter  what  might  bo  the  honest  wishes  of  some 
mistaken  philanthropists;  or  the  selfish  or  criminal  projects  of  some  designing 
politicians.  The  dreams  of  the  first  would  be  at  an  end;  the  second  could  not 
proceed    without    peril    to    themselves." 


Popular  Opinion  in  Missouri,  1819.  87 

was  that  the  resolutions  be  signed  and  printed  and  a  copy  for- 
warded  to  Missouri's  Delegate  in   Congress. 

This  meeting  was  so  open  and  well  attended,  and  included 
so  many  of  the  leaders  of  St.  Louis  county,  that  we  have  no 
hesitancy  in  accepting  it  as  expressing  the  real  feelings  and 
sentiments  of  the  people  of  that  district  on  the  question  of 
Congressional  restriction  of  slavery  in  Missouri. ^^  The  gathering 
unanimously  opposed  such  restriction,  and  although  a  tone  of 
calmness  and  conservatism  pervades  the  resolutions,  the  meeting 
went  so  far  as  to  express  its  wishes  on  questions  which  might 
arise  in  the  future.  Benton's  speech  throws  some  light  on  the 
Missourian's  attitude  on  slavery.  He  opposed  slavery  in  gen- 
eral terms  but  favored  it  in  Missouri.  He  considered  slavery 
a  local  issue  and  resented  Congressional  interference,  and  looked 
with  suspicion  on  Congress'  philanthropy  when  directed  to  one 
spot — Missouri. 

In  pursuance  of  the  eighth  resolution  adopted  May  15, 
1819,  recommending  public  meetings  throughout  the  Terri- 
tory, a  number  of  citizens  of  St.  Ferdinand  township,  in  the 
county  of  St.  Louis,  met  on  June  5,  1819,  and  unanimously 
adopted  a  set  of  anti-slavery  resolutions.^^  So  far  as  we  could 
learn,  this  was  the  only  anti-slavery  public  meeting  held  in 
Missouri  in  that  year.  The  resolutions  adopted  at  this  meeting 
stated:  "the  amendment  to  the  Missouri  state  bill  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  of  the  United  States,  meets  with  our  full 
approbation;"  "slavery  is  contrary  to  the  term  freedom;" 
slavery  "is  one  of  the  greatest  evils"  in  the  United  States  "and 
if  not  protested  against"  will  "bring  upon  us"  the  just  censure 
of  posterity,  "as  well  as  the  judgment  of  a  just,  but  angry  God;'' 
public  meetings  should  be  held  throughout  the  territory  to 
protest  against  the  "threatening  curse  of  the  further  admittance 


11  John  O'Fallon  in  a  letter,  dated  St.  Louis,  May  20,  1819,  to  Gen.  T.  A. 
Smith  wrote  as  follows  on  this  meeting:  "At  a  large  assemblange  [sic]  of  the  Town 
and  country  people  on  last  Saturday  [sic]  were  unanimously  adopted  some  very 
strong  resolutions  in  regard  to  the  conditions  attempted  to  be  imposed  on  the 
Bill  for  erecting  this  Ty.  into  a  state;  I  hope,  most  ardently,  that  similar  ones 
may  be  adopted  by  the  other  counties,  which,  if  known  abroad,  would  remove 
the  apprehension  that  prevent  numbers  of  slaveholders  from  removing  to  this 
country."     In  T.  A.  Smith  Mss.,  State  Hist  Soc.  of  Mo. 

^^  Mo.  Gaz.,  June  23.  1819. 


88  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

of  involuntary  slavery  in  the  future  state  of  Missouri."  More 
of  a  similar  nature  was  included,  and  it  may  be  definitely 
stated  that  these  resolutions  were  strongly  anti-slavery  in 
character.  They  were  ordered  printed  in  the  Missouri  Gazette, 
and  they  appeared  in  that  paper.  From  the  lack  of  comment 
on  this  meeting  by  the  Missouri  press  of  that  day,  and  from  the 
general  description  of  it  and  its  officers,  there  is  a  strong  prob- 
ability that  it  was  little  more  than  a  mere  township  meeting 
and  was  not  at  all  a  numerous  gathering. 

The  next  public  meeting  in  Missouri  assembled  for  the 
purpose  of  discussing  the  question  of  Congressional  restriction 
was  held  on  June  18th  at  Franklin,  Howard  County. ^^  A 
committee  was  appointed  to  draft  resolutions  against  the  "un- 
warrantable restrictions"  on  Missouri  contemplated  by  Con- 
gress, and  it  was  resolved  that  these  resolutions  be  read  at  a 
public  meeting  to  be  held  at  Franklin  on  July  5th  for  the  ap- 
probation of  the  people. 

The  greatest  publicity  then  possible  was  given  this  "Na- 
tional Anniversary"  meeting  on  July  5th,  and  hundreds  of 
citizens  of  the  Boone's  Lick  Country  were  present  in  Franklin 
on  that  day.^^  The  committee  appointed  on  June  18th  reported 
to  this  body  six  resolutions,  which  were  unanimously  adopted. 
These  resolutions  voiced  the  strong  protest  of  the  Boone's  Lick 
people  against  the  proposed  Congressional  restriction  on  sla- 
very in  Missouri.  They  emphasized  the  point  that  Missouri 
should  have  the  exercise  of  her  own  municipal  affairs,  among 
which  they  placed  "the  establishment  or  exclusion  of  slavery." 
The  resolutions  were  short  and  did  not  take  up  the  considera- 
tion of  slavery  in  se.  It  was  resolved  that  these  resolutions 
be  printed  in  the  Franklin  ''Missouri  Intelligencer''  the  St. 
Louis  newspapers,  and  the  ''National  Intelligencer''  of  Wash- 
ington, D.  C. 

The  remarks  of  Henry  Carroll  made  at  this  meeting  are 
worthy  of  notice.     Besides  discussing  the  general  constitutional 


^*  Mo.  Intell..  June  25.  1810. 

**  Ibid.,  July  1),  1K19.  Ho  important  was  this  nu'cting  in  the  eyes  of  the 
editor  of  the  Mi>.  Intell. .  tiiat  the  account  of  it  crowded  out  even  the  advertise- 
ments for  tiiat  week. 


Popular  Opmion  in  Missouri,  1819.  89 

phases  of  the  question  of  restriction  and  also  some  of  the  same 
points  made  by  Benton  in  his  speech  in  St.  Louis  of  May  15th, 
Carroll  said:  "The  real  question  is  not  the  right  of  Congress 
to  legislate  in  the  manner  proposed  for  the  Territory,  but  for 
the  State  of  Missouri.  Once  admitted,  it  is  apparent  that  a 
convention  might  be  assembled  to  alter  or  modify  her  consti- 
tution, and  therefore  to  erase  the  obnoxious  feature.  But  I  do 
trust  that  those  among  whom  I  have  cast  my  lot  will  not  'stoop' 
to  conquer  their  rights,  and  will  spurn  to  juggle  for  them  in  a 
game  of  duplicity,  trick,  or  subterfuge."  Carroll  also  said  that 
he  regretted  the  existence  of  slavery  and  that  he  would  help 
wipe  it  out  if  it  would  not  thereby  check  immigration  from 
Southern  kinsmen.  From  this  short  account  of  the  meeting 
it  is  quite  apparent  that  the  sentiment  in  the  Boone's  Lick 
country  on  the  question  of  restriction  of  slavery  on  the  part 
of  Congress  was  the  same  as  that  which  prevailed  in  St.  Louis 
and  Montgomery  counties. 

On  July  20,  1819,  a  public  meeting  of  the  citizens  of  Wash- 
ington county  was  held  at  the  court  house  in  Potosi,  Missouri, 
in  pursuance  of  public  advertisements.^^  There  were  eight 
resolutions  unanimously  agreed  to  at  this  meeting.  These 
resolutions  were,  however,  practically  identical  with  those 
adopted  at  the  St.  Louis  meeting  of  May  15th,  and  therefore, 
will  not  be  analyzed. ^^ 

Within  two  weeks  after  the  Potosi  meeting  a  similar  one 
was  held  by  the  citizens  of  the  county  of  Ste.  Genevieve  at  the 
court  house  in  the  town  of  Ste.  Genevieve. ^^  This  meeting  was 
held  on  August  2,  1819,  and  elected  General  Henry  Dodge 
president,  and  Judge  John  D.  Cook  secretary  of  the  assembly. 
Both  of  these  men  were  elected  as  delegates  to  the  constitutional 
convention  of  Missouri  in  1820,  and  later  held  the  high  positions 


'*  An  account  of  this  meeting  and  the  resolutions  adopted  appear  in  all  the 
newspapers  then  printed  in  Missouri:  Mo.  Gaz.,  August  4,  1819;  St.  Louis  Enq., 
August  4,  1819;  Jackson  (Missouri)  Herald,  August  20,  1819;  Mo.  Intell,  (Franklin) 
August  20,    1819. 

'"  Even  the  order  of  the  two  sets  of  resolutions  is  the  same  except  that  the 
eighth  resolution  adopted  at  the  St.  Louis  meeting  was  omitted  from  the  Potosi 
resolutions. 

i«  An  account  of  this  meeting  appears  in  the  Jackson  (Missouri)  Herald, 
August  13,  1819,  and  in  the  St.  Louis  Enq.,  August  25,  1819. 


90  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

in  both  state  and  nation.  The  general  tone  of  the  seven  resolu- 
tions adopted  at  this  meeting,  although  quite  similar  to  that  of 
the  resolutions  of  the  other  counties,  differs  from  the  latter  in 
partaking  more  of  a  judicial  and  constitutional  character. 
Nothing  was  said  concerning  slavery,  stress  being  laid  on  the 
United  States  constitution  and  the  treaty  of  cession.  The  only 
noteworthy  resolution  is  the  seventh,  in  which  the  Missouri 
Gazette  was  not  mentioned  with  the  other  Missouri  newspapers 
that  were  requested  to  print  the  resolutions  of  this  meeting. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  citizens  of  New  Madrid  county  on  Sep- 
tember 14,  1819,  a  set  of  six  resolutions  similar  to  those  of  Ste. 
Genevieve  county  was  adopted. ^^  The  third  resolution  adopted 
at  New  Madrid  is  the  most  noteworthy  of  all,  although  it  con- 
tains no  new  declaration.  Its  language  is  as  follows:  "Re- 
solved, that  we  believe  it  to  be  a  part  of  our  absolute  rights 
to  form  such  a  constitution  for  the  government  of  our  state  as 
we  shall  deem  proper,  (provided  the  same  be  republican)  with- 
out any  control  from  the  general  government,  or  subject  to  any 
conditions  imposed  by  them."  These  citizens  viewed  "with 
regret  and  astonishment  the  assumption  of  authority  on  the 
part  of  Congress  to  dictate"  to  them  "in  matters  of  internal 
policy,"  and  declared  that  they  would  "be  admitted  into  the 
Union  on  an  equal  standing  or  not  at  all."  The  Missouri 
Gazette  is  again  omitted  from  the  list  of  newspapers  that  were 
requested  to  publish  these  resolutions. 

The  last  public  meeting  held  in  Missouri  in  1819  which 
was  convened  expressly  for  the  purpose  of  protesting  against 
the  attempted  restriction  of  Congress,  was  in  Cape  Girardeau 
county.  A  notice  of  such  a  meeting  to  be  held  in  Jackson, 
Missouri,  on  September  18th,  is  set  forth  in  the  Jackson  Herald 
of  September  4,  1819.  Its  purpose  was  to  consider  "the  state 
of  the  county^^  and  the  restrictions  attempted  to  be  laid  upon 
the  future  state  of  Missouri  by  the  last  Congress,"  etc.     After 


>' Mo.  Jntell.,  Novi'inlxT  r,,  lsi<);  Jucksan  Ihrald,  Srpti'inbiT  IS.  ISll).  The 
rcisolutions  are  Kivj'n  in  full  in  these  two  papers  but  are  not  copied  hero  owing  to 
the  fact  tliat  tiiey  include  nothinK  new  in  the  way  of  either  argument  or  protest. 

»•  Th(!  author's  notes  on  this  (juotation  contain  the  abbreviation  "Co.";  it 
Is  posslbh;  tliat  this  word  is  "country"  and  not  "county." 


Popular  Opinion  in  Missouri,  1819.  91 

a  careful   examination   of   the   files  of   the   Jackson  Herald  we 
failed  to  find  an  account  of  the  proceedings  of  this  meeting. 

Of  great  interest  and  value  are  the  declarations  and  protests 
that  the  Mount  Pleasant  Baptist  Association  adopted  at  its 
meeting  at  Mount  Zion,  Howard  county,  on  September  11-13, 
1819.  These  declarations  were  addressed  "To  the  Senate  and 
House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
Congress  Assembled,"  and  were  signed  by  Edward  Turner  as 
moderator  and  Geo.  Stapleton  as  clerk. ^^  The  Boone's  Lick 
people  protested  against  the  restriction  of  slavery  in  Missouri 
by  Congress,  and  declared  it  not  only  violated  the  constitution 
and  cession  of  treaty,  but  also  worked  a  hardship  on  the  slaves. 
They  said  that  "altho  with  Washington,  Jefferson,  &  every 
other  person,"  they  regretted  "the  existence  of  slavery  at  all," 
and  although  they  felt  it  their  "duty  to  alleviate  the  situation 
of  the  unfortunate  beings  who"  were  its  subjects  among  them; 
and  that  although  they  looked  "forward  to  the  time  when  a 
happy  emancipation"  could  "be  effected,  consistent  with  the 
principles  of  safety  and  justice,"  still  they  thought  that  the 
constitution  and  treaty  of  cession  gave  Missouri  the  right  to  a 
free  admission  without  restriction.  They  also  declared  that 
they  maintained  that  their  right  to  slaves  was  "secured  by  the 
treaty  of  cession,"  and  that  "the  question  of  slavery"  was  one 
which  belonged  exclusively  to  the  state  to  decide.^° 


I'iVfo.  Intel!.,  October  1,  1819;  Niles'  Register,  XVII.  200f. 

20  "The  constitution  does  not  admit  slaves  to  be  freemen:  i[t]  does  admit 
them  to  be  property,  and  guarantees  to  the  master  an  ownership,  which  his  fellow- 
citizens  living  in  another  state  holding  other  principles  cannot  legislate  from  him; 
and  as  under  the  constitution,  a  sister  state  cannot  emancipate  those  slaves  who 
flee  to  its  jurisdiction,  and  as  the  power  is  not  expressly  delegated  to  congress, 
they  cannot  emancipate  a  slave,  for  the  right  is  reserved  to  the  people.  And  if 
they  cannot  emancipate  a  slave  in  a  state,  and  it  be  lawful  to  hold  slaves  in  this 
territory,  congress  neither  have  the  right  to  emancipate  our  slaves  whilst  we  live 
under  a  territorial  form,  nor  under  a  state  government,  for  by  the  treaty  of  ces- 
sion, congress  are  not  only  bound  to  admit  us  into  the  union,  but  are  bound  to 
protect  us  in  the  free  enjoyment  of  our  liberty  and  property — and  therefore,  not 
only  our  rights  to  admission  into  the  union,  but  our  right  to  hold  slaves  is  secured 
by  the  treaty  of  cession,  which  is  ratified  by  the  President  and  Senate,  and  also 
by  several  acts  of  congress." 

"And  believing  that  the  policy  proposed  in  the  restriction  will  not  only  cause 
jealousy,  foment  discord,  and  shake  the  foundation  of  our  government,  but  by 
confining  them  [the  slaves]  to  one  small  district,  will  increase  the  task,  augment 


92  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

It  is  worth  noticing  that  had  this  association  been  as  pro- 
slavery  in  sentiment  as  it  professed  to  be  anti-slavery,  it  could 
hardly  have  adopted  a  stronger  set  of  resolutions  favoring  that 
institution  than  it  did.  These  resolutions  could  scarcely  have 
been  welcomed  in  the  anti-slavery  section  of  the  Nation  as 
showing  a  sentiment  in  Missouri  that  favored  slavery  restriction, 
unless  extracts  were  quoted  and  not  the  entire  document. 

Closely  related  to  the  resolutions  of  public  meetings  in 
Missouri  in  1819  as  showing  the  sentiment  here  over  the  at- 
tempted restriction  by  Congress,  are  some  of  the  toasts  drunk 
at  dinners  and  celebrations  in  the  proposed  State.  Those 
toasts  that  bear  on  the  questions  of  statehood  and  slavery  reflect 
public  opinion  on  these  subjects  and  should  be  carefully  con- 
sidered for  the  light  they  throw  on  this  study. 

On  May  29,  1819,  the  citizens  of  Franklin,  Howard  county, 
Missouri,  gave  a  public  dinner  to  Captain  Nelson  in  honor  of 
the  arrival  of  the  steamboat  "Independence."  ^^  Many  toasts 
were  drunk  at  this  dinner  and  one  of  the  speakers,  General  Duff 
Green,  was  later  elected  a  delegate  from  Howard  county  to  the 
constitutional  convention.  Following  are  several  of  these 
toasts:  both  their  number  and  language  show  how  concerned 
were  the  banqueters  over  statehood  and  related    subjects. 

"The  Missouri  Territory — Desirous  to  be  numbered  with  the  States  in  con- 
stitutional principles — but  determined  never  to  submit  to  congressional  usur- 
pation." 

"By  Gen.  D.  Green — The  Union — it  is  dear  to  us;  but  liberty  is  dearer." 

"By  Stephen  Rector,  Esq. — may  the  Missourians  defend  their  rights,  if 
necessary,  even  at  the  expense  of  blood,  against  the  unprecedented  restriction 
which  was  attempted  to  be  imposed  on  them  by  the  Congress  of  the  V.  States." 

"By  N.  Patten,  Jr. — The  Mis.souri  territory — its  future  prosperity  and 
greatness  cannot  be  checked  by  the  caprice  by  a  few  men  in  Congress,  while  it 
possesses  a  soil  of  inexhaustil)le  fertility,  abundant  resources,  and  a  body  of  in- 
telligent, enterprising,  independent  freemen." 

"By  Maj.  J.  D.  Wilcox — The  citizens  of  Missouri — may  they  never  become 
a  member  of  the  Union  under  the  restriction  relative  to  slavery." 


the  pains  and  rivet  tlie  chains  of  the  slaves,  we  warn  you  in  tli(>  name  of  luimanity 
itself  to   beware." 

"Th(!  tiin»!  has  arrived  when  it  is  possibli*  to  admit  us  into  tlu>  union — we  have 
all  till!  means  necessary  for  a  state  government.  And  believing  \ho  ((uestion  of 
slavery  is  one  wiiieli  belongs  exclusively  to  the  state  to  deslde  [sic\  on.  we,  on 
b(!half  of  ourselves,  our  fellow  citizens,  and  of  the  most  solemn  faith  of  the  nation, 
<'laim  admission  into  the  union  on  tlie  principles  of  (lie  Federal  Conslilutioti — on 
an  e(iual  footing  wKli  tlie  other  states." 

"  Mo.  Inlell.,  .Juno  4,  1819.  This  steamboat  arrived  at  Franklin  on  May 
28th  and  holds  the  honor  of  being  the  llrst  steamboat  to  make  the  run  up  the 
Ml.ssourl   Ulver. 


Popular  Opinion  in  Missouri,  1819.  93 

At  a  dinner  given  on  a  like  occasion  at  Chariton,  Howard 
county,  Missouri,  on  June  1st,  at  which  Major  J.  S.  Findlay 
presided  and  Colonel  D.  Green  was  vice-president,^^  the  fol- 
lowing  toasts   were   drunk: 

"The  Missouri  Territory — if  not  'embarassed  by  too  much  regulation,'  it 
will  soon  form  a  distinguished  member  of  the  Union." 

"The  people  of  Missouri — Keen  to  discern  their  rights,  and  firm  to  main- 
tain them;  they  acknowledge  no  arbitrary  right  of  restriction  in  the  formation 
of  their  constitution." 

"By  Capt.  R.  M.  Desha,  of  the  Marine  corps.  The  Independent  Missourians 
— may  they  always  reject  any  improper,  unconstitutional  restrictions  imposed 
upon  them  by  the  national  legislature." 

At  a  public  dinner  given  in  St.  Louis  on  June  10th,  at  which 
the  principal  leaders  of  the  day  wxre  present,  the  following 
toasts  were  drunk.^^ 

"The  members  of  the  late  Congress  who  supported  the  constitutional  rights  of 
the  Territory  of  Missouri." 

"Mr.  Scott,  the  Missouri  Delegate  in  Congress — He  spoke  our  sentiments 
in  defence  of  Missoiu-i  State  rights." 

The  Future  State  of  Missouri — Equal  in  sovereignty  to  the  original  states, 
or — nothing — 

Repeated  cheerings — music. 

Bonaparte's  march — reiterated  discharges  of  artillery"  etc. 

It  was  at  the  various  Fourth  of  July  celebrations  held  on 
July  5th,  1819,  that  the  largest  number  of  toasts  on  this  subject 
were  set  forth  by  the  press.  In  Howard  county  a  large  cele- 
bration was  held  at  Franklin  and  of  the  sixteen  set  toasts  and 
the  twenty-two  volunteer  toasts,  one-half  related  to  the  Mis- 
souri statehood  bill.^^     One  of  the  former  was: 

"The  People  of  Missouri — keen  to  discern  their  rights,  and  vigorous  in  the 
defence  of  them." 

Several  of  the  latter  were: 

"By  Doct.  J.  J.  Lowry — The  People  of  the  Missouri  Territory;  may  they 
be  as  firm  in  resisting  domestic  usurpation;  as  they  have  been  in  repelling  foreign 
violence." 

"By  L.  W.  Boggs,  Esq. — The  Hon.  John  Scott,  our  Delegate  to  Congress; 
he  has  supported  our  rights;  we  will  support  him." 

"By  Maj.  Richard  Gentry — Talmadge  and  Taylor — a  dark  room  and  straight 
jackets." 

"By  Maj.  T.  Berry — The  people  of  the  Western  and  Southern  States;  they 
ought  to  view  with  jealousy  the  sinister  designs  of  the  Eastern  states." 


t^  Mo.  Intell.,  June  11,   1819.     Both  Findlay  and  Green  were  later  elected 
delegates  from  Howard  county. 

"  St.  Louis  Enq.,  June  23,  1819.     General  Rector  was  president  of  the  day 
and  was  assisted  by  Colonel  Chouteau,  Major  Christy,  and  Colonel  Benton. 
"  Mo.  Intel!..  July  16,   1819. 


94  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

In  Montgomery  county  the  celebration  was  held  at  Marthas- 
ville,  and  the  toasts  given  were  similar  to  the  foregoing.-^  In 
St.  Charles  several  celebrations  were  held  which  were  noticed 
by  the  press,  and  the  Missouri  statehood  question  was  prom- 
inently set  forth  in  the  toasts  given. ^^ 

In  St.  Louis  county  at  least  three  celebrations  were  held: 
two  in  the  town  of  St.  Louis;  one  in  Saint  Ferdinand  township. 


"  St.  Louis  Enq.,  July  14,  1819.  Following  are  a  few  of  the  toasts  given  at 
this  celebration : 

"The  members  of  the  late  Congress — "Who  supported  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  their  treaty  with  France,  in  the  discussion  of  the  Missouri 
state   Bill." 

"Mr.  John  Scott — Ovu"  member  in  congress,  he  supported  the  rights  of  his 
constituents  with  a  manly  dignity  in  the  last  session  of  Congress." 

"The  people  of  Missouri — They  want  no  Congressional  provision  in  forming 
their  constitution,  they  will  provide  for  themselves." 

"Messrs.  Shaw  and  Holmes — Two  Yankee  republicans,  they  deserve  well 
of  their  country,  may  they  reform  the  apostate  politicians  of  the  north." 

"Messrs.  Talmadge  and  Taylor — Politically  insane,  may  the  ne.xt  Congress 
"appoint  them  a  dark  room,  a  straight  waistcoat  and  a  thin  water  gruel  diet." 

"The  Sovereignty  of  the  State — May  seventy-eight  men.  inimical  to  it, 
clothed  with  the  authority  of  the  people,  never  meet  again  in  Congress  Hall." 

"The  Citizens  of  our  Mother  States — May  they  not  be  deterred  from  emi- 
gration to  this  land  of  Liberty  and  Plenty,  in  consequence  of  those  unconstitu- 
tional restrictions  attempted  to  be  imposed  on  us  in  the  late  Congress,  nor  want 
confidence  in  our  firmness  and  integrity  to  resist  such  outrages  upon  our  rights 
and   privileges." 

"The  Fair  of  Missouri — May  they  take  none  to  their  arms,  nor  grace  any 
with  their  charms  but  those  who  defend  the  rights  of  Missouri." 

**St.  Louis  Enq.,  July  21,  1819;  Mo.  Gaz.,  July  14,  28,  1819.  Following  is 
a  copy  of  one  of  these  meetings: 

"Monroe.  July  5th,  1819. 

Mr.    Charlcss. 

As  a  writer  stiling  himself  "A  farmer  of  St.  Charles  county,"  has  said 
so  much  about  the  political  sentiments  of  that  people;  I  liere  send  you  three 
toasts,  which  were  drank  and  cordially  cheered  by  a  number  of  respectable  citi- 
zens of  that  county,  at  a  celebration  of  the  4th  instant. 

1st.  Tlie  Senate  of  the  U.  States,  magnanimous  and  great — They  frowned 
on  the  violence  of  the  lower  house,  and  arrested  them,  when  charging  over  tl:3 
pales  of  the  constitution  to  seize  on  the  rights  of  Mis.souri. 

2d.  The  honoral)le  Henry  Clay,  esq.,  speaker  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives.— Firm  and  unshaken  h<^  arose  against  the  majority,  and  pointed  out  to  them 
the  Inconsistency  of  tin-ir  attempting  to  h'gislate  away  tlu*  rights  of  any  part 
of  the  community. 

.'id.  The  territory  of  Missouri — wliose  rights  have  been  st)  wantonly  as- 
sailed.— May  her  grlcrvances  be  redressed,  and  wlien  seated  among  the  sister 
states,  may  she-  forget  the;  ai)us(.'  tlicy  liave  otTered  her. 

Voiu's   resp(«ct fully, 

JOHN    LINDSEY." 


Popular  Opinion  in  Missouri,  1819.  95 

One  of  the  St.  Louis  celebrations  was  held  at  "Lucas'  spring" 
and  two  of  the  toasts  given  were:^^ 

"The  United  States — they  are  the  protectors  of  the  territories — their  natural 
friends — without  distrust  or  jealousy  we  expect  from  them  a  due  regard  to  our 
rights." 

"Our  neighbor,  the  state  of  Illinois — homogeneous  in  its  population,  it  has 
not  been  compelled  to  compromise  or  sport  with  the  principles  of  justice." 

At  the  Other  celebration  in  the  town  of  St.  Louis,  Colonel 
Auguste  Chouteau  was  president,  and  several  of  the  toasts 
given  were:  ^^ 

"The  Next  Congress — A  sacred  regard  for  the  Constitution  in  preference  to 
measures  of  supposed  expediency,  will  ensure  to  them  the  confidence  of  the 
American   people." — "Nineteen   cheers.     Yankee   Doodle    (music)." 

"The  Territory  of  Missouri — With  a  population  of  near  100,000  souls,  demands 
her  right  to  be  admitted  into  the  union,  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original 
states." — "Nineteen  cheers — 'Scott's  o'er  the  border'  " 

The  toasts  given  at  the  celebration  in  Saint  Ferdinand 
township  reflect  quite  a  different  sentiment  to  the  public  meet- 
ing held  there  on  June  5,  1819.'-^  Following  are  several  of  the 
toasts  given: 

"The    Constitution   of  the   United    States — A   safe   guard   to  our  Liberty." 
"Thirteen  cheers." 

"The  Territory  of  Missouri — May  she  be  admitted  into  the  Union  on  an  equal 
footing  with  the  original  States,  or  not  received  in  any  other  way." — "Drank 
standing  up. — Twenty-two  cheers." 

Later  in  the  month  of  July,  1819,  a  public  dinner  was  given 
at  Franklin,  Howard  county,  "to  the  officers  attached  to  the 
expedition  destined  for  the  Yellow  Stone."  Tw^o  of  the  toasts 
drunk  were:^** 

"The  Territory  of  Missouri — to  yield  to  a  restriction  or  condition  of  what- 
ever nature  at  the  will  of  Congress,  would  be  parting  with  an  attribute  of  sover- 
eignty." 

"The  citizens  of  the  Missoviri  territory;  a  population  who  understand  their 
rights,  and  know  how  to  maintain  them." 


"  Mo.  Gaz.,  July  7,  1819.  The  springs  were  owned  by  Judge  John  B.  C. 
Lucas,  and  the  meeting  held  there  was  a  rival  of  the  Chouteau  gathering  of  that 
day.  It  does  not  seem  to  have  been  so  well  attended  as  the  other  meeting,  and 
it  was  not  so  strong  in  its  protests  against  Congress.  The  reference  to  the  homo- 
geneous character  of  Illinois'  population  was  a  veiled  attempt  to  make  prominent 
the  supposed  divided  or  heterogeneous  character  of  Missouri's  population. 

^^  Mo.  Gaz.,  July  14,  1819;  St.  Louis  Enq.,  July  14,  1819.  These  two  toasts 
received  the  largest  number  of  cheers. 

'^St.  Louis  Enq.,  July  21,  1819. 

'»  Mo.  IntelL,  July  30,  1819.  The  dinner  was  given  on  the  thirteenth  of 
July. 


96  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

The  last  celebration  of  this  character,  recorded  by  the  press, 
prior  to  the  passage  of  the  Enabling  Act,  was  by  the  Irish  of 
St.  Louis  on  March  17,  1820.^^     One  of  the  toasts  drunk  was: 

"The  Missouri  Territory — Her  entitled  rank  among  the  states  of  the  union, 
and  a  constitution  of  her  own  choice." 

Excepting  the  resolutions  adopted  at  the  various  public 
meetings  held  in  Missouri  in  1819,  perhaps  the  truest  guide  to 
the  sentiment  that  obtained  in  this  territory  at  that  time  re- 
garding the  questions  of  Congressional  restriction  of  slavery 
and  incidentally  of  slavery  itself,  is  the  public  presentments 
and  remonstrances  of  that  class  of  semi-official  bodies  known  as 
Grand  Juries.  There  are  eight  of  these  documents  recorded  in 
those  newspapers  of  that  day  which  have  been  preserved  in 
the  various  libraries  of  the  country.  Seven  of  these  present- 
ments were  framed  by  the  Grand  Juries  of  the  Circuit  Courts 
for  the  counties  of  St.  Louis,  St.  Charles,  Howard,  Jefferson, 
Lincoln,  Montgomery,  and  Washington;  and  one  by  the  Grand 
Jurors  of  the  Superior  Court  of  Missouri  sitting  for  the  Northern 
Circuit.  It  is  thus  seen  that  taken  in  connection  with  the 
public  meetings  heretofore  described,  we  are  enabled  to  give 
a  fairly  trustworthy  account  of  the  feeling  in  Missouri  in  nine 
counties  of  that  territory  in  1819. 

The  first  Grand  Jury  to  return  a  presentment  of  this  nature 
was  that  for  St.  Louis  county,  of  the  Circuit  Court  for  the 
Northern  Circuit  of  the  Territory  of  Missouri.  This  present- 
ment was  made  on  or  about  April  5,  1819,  and  is  signed  by  eight- 
een members  of  the  inquest  and  attested  by  the  clerk  of  the 
court.^^  It  protests  against  the  restriction  on  Missouri  at- 
tempted by  the  last  Congress,  as  being  contrary  to  the  constitu- 
tion  and    the   treaty   of  cession.     And   states:     "Although   we 

deprecate  anything  like  an  idea  of  disunion, ,   yet  we 

feel  it  our  duty  to  take  a  manly  and  dii^nified  stand  for  our 
rights  and  {)rivileges " 


"  Mo.  (inz.,  March  22.  1S2().  The  date  of  the  colohration  is  f^ivon  as  Feb- 
ruary !7tii  but  it  is  <iuitt'  probable  Miat  this  is  a  typographical  error,  and  should 
have  been    March    17th. 

"  A  copy  of  tills  presentment  was  printed  in  the  Mik  Gn:.,  .\pril  11.  ISIO.  and 
In  the  St.  Louis  Enq.,  April   it.   isi«». 


Popular  Opinion  in  Missouri,  1819.  97 

Following  this  presentment  a  similar  one  was  returned, 
April  30,  1819,  by  the  Grand  Jurors  of  the  Superior  Court  of 
Missouri  territory,  sitting  at  St.  Louis,  for  the  Northern  Cir- 
cuit.^^  This  latter  document  protests  against  the  attempt  made 
by  Congress  to  dictate  a  provision  in  the  constitution  of  Mis- 
souri however  inconsiderable  that  provision  might  be;  "but  in 
the  one  proposed,  the  prohibition  of  the  further  introduction  and 
continuance  of  slavery  in  the  future  state  of  Missouri''  it  believes 
that  all  the  slave-holding  states  are  vitally  menaced  and  threat- 
ened with  eventual  destruction.  The  Grand  Jurors  further 
said  that  this  act  of  Congress  was  contrary  to  the  treaty  of  ces- 
sion and  also  ''unfriendly  to  the  slaves  themselves."  They 
concluded  this  protest  by  stating  that  they  believed  "it  the 
duty  of  the  people  of  Missouri  to  make  known  in  the  most  public 
manner  that  they  are  acquainted  with  their  own  rights  and  are 
determined  to  maintain  them"  and  recommended  ''a  public 
meeting  of  the  citizens  at  the  Court  House  in  St.  Louis"  on  the 
15th  of  May  next. 

All  the  Grand  Jury  presentments  returned  in  1819  on  this 
subject  after  the  two  protests  in  April,  1819,  at  St.  Louis,  were 
in  July.  One  of  these  was  the  presentment  of  the  Grand  Jury 
for  the  Circuit  Court  of  St.  Charles  county,  which  was  returned 
on  July  6th.-''  It  based  its  objection  to  the  attempted  re- 
striction by  Congress  on  constitutional  grounds  and  on  the 
treaty  of  cession. 

The  Howard  county  Grand  Jury  in  their  presentment  of 
July  14th  not  only  set  forth  the  constitutional  objections  to  the 
past  action  of  Congress  but  declared:  ''It  is  not  now  the  ques- 
tion whether  the  future  admission  of  slavery  be  just  or  unjust — 
wise  or  unwise.  That  question  will  be  met  at  another  time  and 
another  place.  We  deny  that  Congress  have  any  right  to  pass 
upon  it.  It  belongs  to  the  people  of  the  future  state  of  Mis- 
souri,   and    to   them   alone."     It   stated,    however,    that    "The 


"  A  copy  of  this  presentment  was  printed  in  the  Mo.  Gaz.,  May  12,  1819, 
and  in  the  St.  Louis  Enq.,  May  5,  1819.  Scharf,  op.  cit.,  I.  562,  also  contains 
extracts  from  this  document. 

'-*  Mo.  IntelL,  July  30.  1819;  Mo.  Gaz.,  July  14,  1819. 

M  S— 7 


98  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

Grand  Jury  feel  no  disposition  to  impugn  the  motives  of  the 
majority  of  the  house  of  representatives."  -^ 

The  Grand  Jury  of  Jefferson  county  also  viewed  with  regret 
the  attempt  made  by  Congress  to  dictate  an  article  in  Missouri's 
Constitution  prohibiting  the  future  introduction  of  slavery  in 
that  state.  They  said:  "That  slavery  is  an  evil  we  do  not 
pretend  to  deny,  but  on  the  contrary  would  most  cheerfully 
join  in  any  measures  to  abolish  it,  provided  those  measures 
were  not  likely  to  produce  greater  evils  to  the  people  than  the 
one  complained  of;  but  we  hold  the  power  of  regulating  this 
matter — of  applying  a  remedy  to  this  evil,  to  belong  to  the 
states  and  to  the  people,  and  not  to  Congress."  They  added: 
"The  right  of  holding  slaves,  although  it  may  not  be  a  natural 
right,  is  one  which  is  allowed  by  the  federal  constitution,"  etc. 
Their  argument  rested  entirely  on  constitutional  grounds  and 
emphasized  the  right  of  a  state  to  regulate  its  internal  affairs.-® 
The  Grand  Jury  of  Lincoln  county  presented  a  very  short 
protest  against  the  attempted  restriction  which  they  considered 
contrary  to  the  constitution.  They  expressed  a  hope  that 
when  the  question  of  admitting  Missouri  was  again  agitated  in 
Congress  that  "the  true  genuine  and  republican  spirit  of  the 
Constitution"  be  consulted,  and,  they  added,  "have  its  in- 
fluence unimpeded  by  mistaken  notions  of  philanthropy  or  the 
direful  genius  of  usurpation."  " 

The  Grand  Jury  for  Montgomery  county  viewed  "the 
restrictions  attempted  to  be  imposed  on  the  people  of  the 
Missouri  territory  in  the  formation  of  a  state  constitution"  as 
"unlawful,  unconstitutional,  and  oppressive."  They  added 
that  they  hoped  those  restrictions  would  "never  more  be  at- 
tempted; and  if  they  should,"  they  hoped  "by  the  assistance  of 

**Mo.  Jntcll..  .Inly  if,.  1819.  A  full  copy  of  lliis  pn'scnl  iiicnt  is  found  In  the 
InteUigencer  and  is  siKned  by  J.  S.  Kindlay.  Ikiijaniiu  11.  iiirves.  and  fij;htiH>n 
others.  Tlicso  two  men  v/vrv.  later  dclcK'atos  to  tho  constitutional  convention  of 
IH'20.     This  prcsintnu'nt  was  nluriu-d  at   Franklin  on  .luly   It.   ISIO. 

"Mo.  (Jaz..  AuKiist  11.  iHli);  Mo.  Jnlcll..  August  27,  ISIU;  Jackson  Herald, 
August  liO.   1H1«».      Th<^  full  te.xt  is  K'ivcn  in  all  th(>.sc  ncwspap«'rs. 

^' .Jackson   Hi  raid.  Auk'ust  lis.   181<);  St.  Louis  Euq.,  August    IS,   ISIO. 


i 


Popular  Opinion  in  Missouri,  1819.  99 

the  genius  of  '76,  and  the  interposition  of  Divine  Providence, 
to  find  means  to  protect  their  rights."  ^^ 

The  Washington  county  Grand  Jury  protested  against  the 
attempted  restriction  as  being  as  "unwarrantable  as  it  was  un- 
constitutional, and  tended  not  only  to  abridge  them  of  their 
precious  rights  as  freemen  to  act  and  judge  for  themselves,  but 
also  to  deprive  them,  in  direct  violation  of  the  constitution  of 
the  United  States,  as  of  the  treaty  of  cession,  of  the  free  en- 
joyment of  a  species  of  property  which  they  lawfully  held  under 
the  Spanish  government."  -^ 

Excluding  the  resolutions  adopted  and  toasts  drunk  at 
public  meetings,  and  the  presentments  made  by  grand  juries, 
the  most  valuable  information  preserved  today  that  shows  the 
sentiment  in  Missouri  during  1819  and  1820  over  the  action  of 
Congress  and  the  question  of  slavery,  is  the  editorials  in  the 
newspapers  of  that  territory.  Great  as  is  the  power  of  the 
press  today,  it  is  doubtful  if  there  are  three  papers  in  Missouri 
who  exert  so  great  an  influence  on  so  large  a  proportion  of  this 
State's  population  as  did  the  Missouri  Intelligencer,  Missouri 
Gazette,  and  St.  Louis  Enquirer  during  the  years  1819  and  1820. 
This  was,  we  believe,  largely  due  to  the  fact  that  they,  together 
with  the  Jackson  Herald,  Independent  Patriot  and  St.  Charles 
Missourian,  held  possession  of  the  field  of  journalism  in  Mis- 
souri. But  it  was  also  the  result  of  the  ability  and  honesty  of 
the    editors.^*^     It    should    be    remembered    that    the    editorial 


^*  Jackson  Herald,  September  4,  1819:  St.  Louis  Enq.,  August  25,  1819.  The 
foreman  of  this  Grand  Jury  was  James  Talbott,  later  a  delegate  from  this  county 
to  the  constitutional  convention  of  1820. 

^»  St.  Louis  Enq.,  August  4,  1819;  Mo.,  Gaz.,  August  4,  1819:  Jackson  Herald, 
August  20,  1819;  Mo.  Intell.,  August  20,  1819. 

»» Joseph  Charless,  editor  of  the  Gazette,  was  the  pioneer  of  the  IMissouri 
press,  having  established  and  edited  successfully  the  first  newspaper  printed  west 
of  the  Mississippi  River.  After  changes  in  name  it  today  is  issued  as  the  St. 
Louis  Republic.  Charless  was  not  only  an  able  and  honest  editor  but  a  fearless 
one  as  well;  his  high  idealisn  on  the  slavery  question  during  the  years  1819  and 
the  first  part  of  1820  shows  his  remarkable  independence.  His  farewell  letter  to 
his  patrons  {Missouri  Gazette,  September  13,  1820)  is  his  own  spirit  translated 
into   words. 

Thomas  Hart  Benton  was  one  of  the  editors  of  the  Enquirer,  and  his  demo- 
cratic nobility  and  resourcefullness  has  rarely  been  equalled.  No  statesman  of 
any  land  ever  followed  his  own  lights  more  unswerveingly  and  tried  harder  to 
perfect  those  lights  than  Benton.  No  other  statesman  in  Missouri  history  and 
perhaps  in  the  history  of  this  Nation,  excepting  Washington,  ever  had  a  more 


100  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

then  held  a  more  important  and  a  more  prominent  place  in  the 
paper  than  it  does  today.  At  least  it  occupied  more  relative 
space  and  concentrated  on  fewer  subjects.^^  Even  at  that  early 
day  jealousies  existed  between  editors.  The  papers  printed 
outside  St.  Louis  were  free  from  these,  but  the  Gazette  and  the 
Enquirer  were  bitter  rivals  and  pursued  different  editorial 
policies.^2  However,  regarding  the  slavery  restriction  clause 
attempted  to  be  imposed  by  Congress  on  Missouri,  all  the  news- 
papers voiced  their  protests  in  the  strongest  terms.  It  was 
over  the  election  of  the  delegates  and  the  question  of  slavery 
itself  that  the  Gazette  wandered  from  the  fold  and  maintained 
an  attitude  as  brave  and  independent  as  was  possible,  consider- 
ing the  strength  of  its  foes  and  the  weakness  of  its  position. 


absolute  control  over  the  voters  of  his  constituency  without  being  aided  by  some 
kind  of  a  machine  than  Benton  did.  His  integrity  was  never  questioned,  and  few 
were  daring  enough  to  challenge  his  judgments  in  his  presence. 

Nathaniel  Patton,  one  of  the  editors  of  the  Missouri  Inteiligencer,  was  an 
able  and  sincere  writer.  His  editorials  are  sound  and  their  influence  must  have 
been  great.  He  reached  the  western  settlements  of  Missouri,  and  published  the 
only  paper  in  the  Boone's  Lick  Country.  His  was  the  first  paper  published  west 
of  the  Mississippi  River  outside  the  city  of  St.  Louis.  After  several  changes  of 
place  of  publication  and  in  name,  it  is  today  issued  in  Columbia.  Missouri,  as  the 
Columbia   Ilerald-Slatesman. 

Little  is  known  regarding  the  ability  and  power  of  the  editors  of  the  Jackson 
Herald  and  Independent  Patriot,  and  of  the  St.  Charles  Missourian.  The  Jackson 
Herald  did  not  appear  until  the  summer  of  1819;  the  St.  Charles  Missourian  ap- 
peared in  the  spring  of  1820. 

"  The  Missouri  newspaper  of  1819  and  1820  contained  the  following  general 
subjects:  foreign  news,  national  news  together  with  copies  of  speeches  delivered 
in  Congress,  such  State  news  as  was  of  the  most  public  nature,  editorials,  numerous 
articles  by  individuals,  letters,  a  few  literary  articles  (clipped),  and  advertisements. 
The  sensational  and  the  personal  were  omitted  except  duels.  Birtlis,  marriages, 
and  obituaries  were  stated  in  two  or  three  lines  and  frequently  in  one  line  of  small 
print.  As  the  "boiler-plate"  news  was  then  unknown,  the  paper  was  "set  up" 
at   home. 

"The  Gazette  opposed  most  of  the  leading  politicians  of  .St.  Louis  dur'.ng 
1819  and  1H20  and  was  in  turn  opposed  by  them.  It  also  opposed  John  Scott. 
Missouri's  Territorial  Delegate  in  Congress,  and  .some  of  its  criticisms  of  Scott 
appear  rathiT  "far-fctdied"  today.  (C/.  Mo.  Ga:..  March  10.  1S19).  Scott  in 
his  turn  refused  to  make  any  communications  to  the  (JaziMte.  (Cf.  Mo.  Ga:.. 
•January  1.'),  1819.)  On  the  wiiole,  Cliarless  appears  to  have  taken  the  unpopular 
side;  of  the  slavery  (|uestion.  He  seems  to  have  realized  this,  and  liodged  more 
and  more  during  the  summer  of  1820. 

The  Enquirer  warmly  espoused  and  ably  championed  the  popular  side  of 
slavery,  and  under  tlu;  gul(lan<'e  of  Benton  never  l(»t  pass  an  ojiport unity  to  score 
on   Its  rival. 

The  rivalry  b«itween  tlie.se  two  sheets  llnally  degenerated  to  pliysical  violence 
and  Charh^ss  was  assaulted  on  May  10,  1S20,  l)y  I.saac  N.  Henry,  one  of  the  edi- 
tors of  the  Enquirer.      (Mo.  Gaz.,     May   17,    IS20). 


Popular  Opinion  in  Missouri,  1819.  101 

r  In  the  spring  of  1819  the  Gazette  began  its  fiercest  attacks 
on  Congress.  On  April  7th,  it  said:  "It  has  been  reserved  for 
the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  present  Congress  to  commit 
the  most  gross  and  barefaced  usurpation  that  has  yet  been 
committed.  They  have  ingrafted  on  the  bill  for  our  admission 
into  the  Union  a  provision  that  'the  State  Constitution  shall 

prohibit  the  further  introduction  of  slavery; '  Bear  in 

mind,  fellow-citizens,  that  the  question  now  before  us  is  not 
whether  slavery  shall  be  permitted  or  prohibited  in  the  future 
State  of  Missouri,  but  whether  we  will  meanly  abandon  our 
rights  and  suffer  any  earthly  power  to  dictate  the  terms  of  our 
Constitution."  ^^  Although  opposing  the  attempted  restric- 
tion of  Congress,  the  Gazette  fearlessly  opened  its  columns  to 
those  writers  in  Missouri  who  differed  from  it  on  this  point, 
even  though  by  so  doing  it  lost  both  influence  and  subscribers, 
and  was  bitterly  criticised.  In  support  of  its  position,  it  said: 
"On  the  subject  of  the  Missouri  state  bill,  we  have  always  be- 
lieved, and  still  believe,  that  it  can  be  clearly  proved  by  sound 
and  logical  argument,  that  the  conditions  attempted  to  be  an- 
nexed, are  unconstitutional;  but  although  we  believe  this,  we 
will  never  close  our  pages  to  a  fair  and  liberal  discussion  of  the 
subject.  Our  motto  is  'Truth  without  Fear.'  "  ^^  It  was  only 
natural  that  the  Enquirer  should  take  advantage  of  this  atti- 
tude of  Charless's  especially  since  Benton  was  never  known  to 
have  either  sympathy  or  patience  for  an  opponent.  The 
Gazette  replied  to  the  Enquirer  on  June  16,  1819,  as  follows: 
"For  ourselves  we  wish  but  one  sentiment  did  prevail,  which 
we  conceive  the  correct  one,  viz.:  that  Congress  have  no  con- 
stitutional right  to  impose  the  restrictions."  ^^  Although  op- 
posing   a    slavery    restriction    on    Missouri    by    Congressional 


"Scharf,  op.  cit.,  I.  561. 

»«  Mo.  Gaz.,  May  12,  1819. 

"  The  Gazette  was  kept  busy  at  this  time  in  denying  its  approval  of  restricting 
slavery,  and  was  even  charged  with  emancipation  sympathies.  In  1820  it  openly 
came  out  in  favor  of  slavery  restriction  and  from  his  editorials  Charless  appears 
to  have  strongly  opposed  that  institution.  During  1819  he  hid  behind  his  motto 
"Truth  without  Fear,"  and  let  all  writers  have  space  and  in  answering  an  editorial 
challenge  his  subterfuge  argument  was  his  opposition  to  Congressional  restriction, 
which  he  always  managed  to  bring  to  the  front  as  an  answer  to  any  charge  of 
slavery  heresy.  It  is  in  the  Gazette  only  that  one  meets  with  anti-slavery  and  slavery 
restriction   articles. 


102  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

action,  the  Gazette  did  favor  some  kind  of  a  slavery  restriction 
section  being  incorporated  in  the  proposed  state  constitution, 
and  came  out  openly  during  the  spring  of  1820  in  favor  of  those 
candidates  for  delegates  whose  views  on  this  subject  coincided 
with  its  position.^^  On  May  3,  1820,  the  last  day  of  the  election 
of  delegates  the  Gazette  contained  this  daring  editorial  together 
with  a  list  of  the  candidates  and  their  position  on  the  slavery 
question:  "Fellow  Citizens,  Today  is  the  last  opportunity 
that  is  left  to  you  to  give  your  voice  in  forming  a  State  Con- 
stitution. You  are  now  called  upon  for  the  last  time  to  say 
whether  aristocracy  and  tyranny  shall  prevail — whether  a  few 
nabobs  selected  by  a  secret  caucus  shall  be  forced  upon  you  as 
proper  persons  to  form  a  constitution  for  your  government,  or 
whether  you  will  exercise  the  proper  persons  to  frame  your 
mode  of  government.  You  are  now  called  upon  for  the  last 
time  to  declare  whether  yourselves,  and  your  children,  to  the 
latest  generations,  will  be  cursed  with  slavery,^''  the  evil  and  in- 
justice of  which  is  acknowledged  by  every  one;  or  whether  you 
will  elect  men  who  will  take  measures  gradually  to  extinguish 
the  evil,  without  interfering  with  the  existing  rights  of  property, 
or  injuring  the  growth  of  the  country.  We  entreat  all  those 
who  have  not  yet  voted  to  assert  the  dearest  right  of  freemen. 
No  question  can  be  so  important.  Lose  the  present  opportunity 
and  no  other  will  ever  arrive.  Your  destiny  is  fixed  by  the 
result  of  this  day's  vote,"  etc.  etc.  As  final  evidence  of  Char- 
Icss's  position  on  these  two  subjects,  is  the  following  extract 
from  his  farewell  letter  of  September  13,  1820,  to  his  "Patrons" 
on  his  retirement  from  the  editorship  of  the  Gazette:  "It  has 
been  said  that  the  Gazette  advocated  the  restriction  of  Missouri 
by  Congress.  The  base  fabricator  of  this  charge  is  defied  cO 
prove  it.  Examine  the  files  and  they  will  be  found  to  pursue 
one  uniform  course.  Open  to  all  communications,  the  editor 
has  never  hesitated  to  state  his  opposition  to  the  interference 
of  Congress,  but  still  felt  desirous  that  some  limitation  should 
be  put  by  the  People,  to  the  importation  of  slaves.^^ 

»  C/.  Mo.  Gaz.,  May  li.  1820. 

•'  Our    Italics. 

»•  Mil.   dm.,   ScptcmliiT   i;{,    1S2U. 


Popular  Opinion  in  Missouri,  1819.  103 

In  striking  contrast  to  the  few  editorials  which  appeared 
in  the  Gazette  in  1819  opposing  Congressional  restriction  of 
slavery  in  Missouri,  are  the  great  number  found  in  the  Enquirer. 
On  March  31,  1819,  the  latter  paper  declared  that  Congress 
would  never  impose  the  restriction  on  Missouri,  but  if  it  had 
"the  people  of  the  United  States  would  have  witnessed  a  spe- 
cimen of  Missouri  feeling  in  the  indignant  contempt  with  which 
they  would  have  trampled  the  odious  restriction  under  their  feet, 
and  proceeded  to  the  formation  of  a  Republican  Constitution 
in  the  fulness  of  the  peoples  power"  etc.^^  When  the  various 
public  meetings  protested  and  the  grand  juries  of  Missouri 
returned  presentments  during  1819  against  the  action  of  Con- 
gress, the  Enquirer  contained  many  editorials  commending  the 
action  of  these  bodies.^*^  The  Enquirer  affirmed  that,  although 
there  might  be  many  in  St.  Charles  county  who  opposed  slavery 
on  principle,  "no  citizen  is  known  in  St.  Louis  who  will  support" 
the  statement  that  the  citizens  in  the  latter  place  were  "divided 
in  their  opinion  about  the  constitutional  powers  of  Congress  to 
prohibit  slavery  among"  them.^^  That  paper  strongly  attacked 
the  Gazette  for  its  position,  and  especially  the  slavery  restriction 
and  anti-slavery  articles,  written  by  individuals,  which  were 
printed  in  the  rival  sheet.'^^  On  July  21,  1819,  the  Enquirer 
was  aroused  over  hearing  that  private  petitions  praying  the  next 
Congress  to  abolish  slavery  in  Missouri  were  being  circulated 


»9  SL  Louis  Enq.,  March  31,  1819.  On  April  21,  1819,  in  an  editorial  the 
Enquirer  said  it  had  discovered  that  "A  St.  Charles  Farmer"  who  had  been  writing 
slavery  restriction  articles  in  the  Gazette  lived  in  St.  Louis  and  thought  that  his 
writings  would  probably  circulate  in  New  England  papers  as  evidence  of  the 
sentiment  in  Missouri. 

*<>  St.  Louis  Enq.,  May  5,  12,  19,  July  14,  Aug.  18,  1819. 

*^  St.  Louis  Enq.,  June  9,  1819.     Following  is  a  copy  of  the  entire  editorial: 

"Missouri  Slave  Question. — The  Editors  of  the  National  Intelligencer  be- 
lieve that  the  citizens  of  this  place  are  divided  in  their  opinion  about  the  con- 
stitutional powers  of  Congress  to  prohibit  slavery  among  us.  They  were  naturally 
led  into  that  belief  by  the  face  of  the  public  papers.  It  was  a  consequence  spoken 
of  by  the  citizens  of  this  place,  as  the  certain  effect  of  publications  made  in  a  paper 
in  this  town.  Yet  what  is  the  fact?  Are  we  divided  in  opinion  upon  that  point? 
We  confidently  affirm  that  no  citizen  is  known  in  St.  Louis  who  wiU  support  the 
aflBrmative  of  the  question.  As  to  the  publications  they  are  the  work  of  men 
newly  arrived,  who  would  not  be  qualified,  either  by  residence  or  the  payment 
of  a  tax  to  vote,  in  an  election,  and  who  with  all  their  impudence  have  shame 
enough  to  endeavor  to  conceal  their  names,  to  avoid  the  public  contempt." 

*2  St.  Louis  Enquirer,  June  23,  1819. 


104  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

by  non-slaveholders  and  that  these  petitions  were  being  swollen 
by  the  signatures  of  "boys  and  striplings."  And  the  editor  of 
the  Enquirer  protested  vehemently  against  an  Edwardsville 
(Illinois)  newspaper  stirring  up  the  Missouri  slavery  question, 
and  said  that  this  was  purely  a  domestic  concern  of  Missouri, 
that  actual  slavery  existed  in  Illinois,  and  that  the  citizens  of 
the  two  states  should  not  be  thus  "set  against  each  other."  ^ 
The  attitude  of  the  Enquirer  was  one  of  absolute  opposition  to 
Congressional  action  in  restricting  slavery  in  Missouri,  and 
when  the  election  of  delegates  took  place  in  1820,  it  favored 
those  who  opposed  any  restriction  of  slavery  in  the  new  State. 

The  Jackson  Herald  contained  no  editorials  of  special  value 
on  this  point,  but  its  attitude  was  also  one  of  opposition  to  any 
slavery  restriction  being  applied  in  Missouri  whether  imposed 
by  Congress  or  by  the  convention.  This  paper  was  not  a  very 
strong  sheet  in  its  editorials.  It  tried  to  maintain  a  fair  and 
independent  attitude  on  most  questions  that  arose,  especially 
on  the  rivalry  between  the  St.  Louis  Gazette  and  the  Enquirer 
and  in  the  bitter  fights  over  public  men  and  their  acts.'*'' 

The  Missouri  Intelligencer  bitterly  opposed  the  action  of 
Congress  in  attempting  to  impose  a  slavery  restriction  on  Mis- 
souri and  said:  "This  subject  appears  to  have  excited  a  general 
burst  of  indignation  from  the  people  of  this  territory.  It  is  a 
question  in  which  Congress  have  no  right  to  interfere,  and  to 
which  we  as  the  people  will  never  submit.  The  restriction  at- 
tempted to  be  imposed  upon  us  by  the  seventy-eight  members  of 
the  House  of  Representatives  who  voted  for  it,  were  those  ex- 
clusively from  the  eastern  states..  They  view  with  a  jealous  eye 
the  march  of  power  westward,  and  are  well  aware  the  preponder- 
ance will  soon  be  against  them;  therefore  they  have  combined 


""Private  Petitions — For  a  long  time  wo  have  been  informed  that  private 
petitions  were  curried  about  in  several  parts  of  the  territory  praying  tlie  next 
congress  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  Missouri  territory.  They  are  said  to  be  circulated 
chiefly  by  persons  who  own  no  slaves  themselves,  and  who  are  very  willing  to  ap- 
pear generous  at  the  expenses  of  others.  In  promoting  tiieir  object,  and  to  multiply 
signatures,  it  is  said  tliat  lioys  and  striplings  are  got  to  put  down  their  names, 
witliout  the  addition  of  tlieir  ages;  and  by  sudi  contrivances  as  tliest^  the  autiientic 
expression  of  public  sentiment  in  tills  territory  i)y  (irand  Juri(>s.  I»ublic  Meetings, 
Toasts  of  Public  com|)anies  &c.  is  to  be  invalidated  and  overborne  in  tlie  next 
congress."      {St.  Louis  Enq.,  .July  21,    1S19.) 

*^  Jackson   JJcrald,   P(^l)ruary   20,    1820. 


Popular  Opinion  in  Missouri,  1819.  105 

against  us;  but  let  them  pause  before  they  proceed  further,  or 
the  grave  they  are  preparing  for  us,  may  be  their  own  sepul- 
chre." ^^  On  January  28,  1820,  it  said:  "The  most  extra- 
ordinary and  unprincipled  means  are  [being  used]  using  by  the 
eastern  people  to  prevent  the  citizens  of  this  territory  from 
enjoying  equal  privileges  with  those  of  other  states."  It 
further  said  that  the  proposed  compromise  of  certain  members 
of  Congress  to  separate  by  a  line  running  west  the  slave  and  free 
territory  west  of  the  Mississippi  river  "evinces  that  humanity 
is  not  the  sole  object  of  those  who  brought  forward  the  re- 
striction." ^^  This  newspaper  not  only  opposed  slavery  re- 
striction in  Missouri  by  Congress  but  set  forth  those  articles  de- 
fending slavery  in  Missouri  which  had  appeared  in  other  news- 
papers. One  article  in  particular  taken  from  a  Philadelphia 
paper  and  which  the  Missouri  hitelligencer  called  "a  very  able 
and  ingenius  article — on  the  Missouri  Question"  strove  to 
prove  the  following  propositions:  (1)  that  "the  holding  of 
slaves  is  defencible  by  the  law  of  nature;"  (2)  that  "slavery  is 
so  by  the  law  of  God;"  (3)  that  "slavery  is  so  by  the  municipal 
laws  of  the  great  majority  of  the  civilized  nations,  ancient  and 
modern;"  (4)  that  "slaves  are  property;"  (5)  that  "negroes 
have  no  right  to  object  to  negro  slavery;"  (6)  that  "Congress 
has  not  the  right  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  Missouri  territory; 
(7)  that  "under  present  circumstances  it  is  not  expedient  to 
prohibit  it."  ^^  The  Missouri  Intelligencer  from  its  first  issue 
in  April,  1819,  to  the  spring  of  1820,  was  almost  entirely  taken 
up  with  the  "Missouri  Question,"  and  not  only  contained  in- 
dividual articles  and  editorials  but  copies  of  the  speeches  re- 
ported in  Congress."^^     On  April  15,  1820,  it  printed  in  full  the 


*''  Mo.  Intel!.,  (editorial)  May  9,  1819.  It  proceeds  as  follows:  "As  well 
might  they  arrest  the  covirse  of  the  ocean  that  washes  their  barren  shores,  as  to 
check  our  future  growth.  Emigration  will  continue  with  a  jiant  [sic]  stride  until 
the  wilderness  shall  be  a  wilderness  no  more;  but  in  its  stead  will  arise  flourishing 
towns,  cvdtivated  farms,  &  peace,  plenty  and  happiness  smile  on  the  land.  Let 
those  who  are  raised  by  the  voice  of  the  people  to  watch  over  and  protect  their 
rights  and  liberties,  beware  how  they  abuse  so  sacred  a  trust,  lest  they  And  in  every 
injured  freeman  the  spirit  of  a  Hampden  rise  and  hurl  them  from  their  posts." 

*^Ibid.,    (editorial)   January   28,    1820. 

«'  Mo.  Intell.,  Feb.  18,  1820.  The  article  was  written  by  one  who  said  he 
was  "no  friend  to  slavery."     (Our  italics.) 

««  Cf.  Mo.  Intel!.,  May  7,  1819;  March  4.  11,  18,  25,  1820. 


106  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

Enabling  Act  passed  by  Congress,  and  remarked  in  its  editorial 
column:  "The  names  of  those  who  voted  in  favor  of  the  rights 
of  Missouri  should  be  handed  down  to  posterity  as  examples 

to  future  legislators By  their  firmness,  independence 

and  patriotism,  we  have  been  rescued  from  degradation,  and 
the  constitution   from  violation." 

The  most  extensive  though  perhaps  the  least  valuable 
source  of  information  showing  the  sentiment  in  Missouri  over 
the  slavery  restriction  attempted  by  Congress  and  incidentally 
over  slavery  itself  is  the  various  articles  written  over  noms  de 
guerre,  which  appeared  in  the  Missouri  newspapers  of  that 
day.  These  articles  are  so  numerous  that  only  the  briefest 
summary  of  them  is  possible.  It  is  hardly  an  exaggeration  to 
state  that  few  issues  were  run  off  the  press  from  April  1819  to 
April  1820  which  did  not  contain  remarks  on  the  "Missouri 
Question."  These  articles  covered  the  entire  field  of  this 
question  both  pro  and  con,  and  some  took  up  the  discussion  of 
slavery  as  an  institution  in  se  and  also  with  regard  to  its  appli- 
cation in  Missouri.  They  naturally  divide  themselves  into 
two  general  groups:  those  favoring,  and  those  opposing  the 
attempt  of  Congress  to  impose  a  slavery  restriction  on  Missouri. 

The  pro-Congress  articles  appeared  in  only  one  newspaper 
in  Missouri  Territory,  the  Missouri  Gazette,  and  logically  were 
anti-slavery  in  tone  and  argument.  If  all  the  7ioms  de  guerre 
under  these  articles  represented  different  writers,  then  the  total 
number  of  pro-Congress  Missouri  authors  was  only  six!"*^     Some 


«»The  most  pronounced  and  ablest  of  these  was  one  who  signed  himself  "A 
Farmer  of  St.  Charles  County."  His  communications  appeared  in  the  Missouri 
Gazelle  on  the  following  dates:  April  7.  21,  May  5,  19.  June  9.  30.  1819.  This 
author  wrote  a  series  of  five  letters  advocating  restriction  of  slavery  either  by 
Congress  or  by  Missouri,  and  also  several  replies  to  criticisms  of  his  articles.  He 
declared  that  the  people  in  his  neighborhood  were  opposed  to  (he  further  intro- 
duction of  slavery  in  Mi.ssouri.  and  said  that  slavery  was  admitted  to  be  an  evil 
and  a  curse  even  by  its  advocates.  lie  considered  that  this  curse  would  bo 
strengthened  if  allowed  to  spread  and  said  that  if  C\)ngress  did  not  restrict  it  in 
Missouri  then  "wo  will  try  to  do  it  ourselves."  As  regards  the  constitutional 
right  of  Congress  to  do  this  he  continued:  "Let  none  imagine  tliat  I  believe 
C^mgress  does  not  pos.se.ss  the  constitutional  right  to  proliibit  tlie  introduction 
of  slavery.  I  hav«^  no  doubts  on  the  subject.  If  slavery  is  anti-repul)lican. 
(and  who  but  a  madman  will  drny  that  it  is?)  (\)ngre.ss  have  the  right  to  refuse 
their  sanction  to  any  constitution  that  tolerates  it."  (A/o.  C.az.,  May  T).  1819. 
3d  Letter  dated  April  21.  1819.)  In  iiis  fourth  letter  (A/o.  C.az.,  May  19.  1819, 
letter  dated    May    1,  lsi<»)  the  "Lawyer  junto"  of  St.    Louis  is  first   mentioned. 


Popular  Opinio7i  i?i  Missouri,  1819.  107 

of  these  writers  lay  stress  on  the  evils  of  slavery  as  an  institu- 
tion and  the  need  of  restricting  it  either  by  Congressional  or 
local  action;  ^^  others,  while  recognizing  the  evils  of  slavery 
and  while  favoring  either  emancipation  or  restriction,  empha- 
sized the  desirability  and  the  good  policy  of  waiting  patiently 
for  Congress  to  act,  and  defended  that  body  as  acting  for  the 
general  welfare  of  the  country. -^^ 

Although  all  pro-Congress  articles  were  logically  pro- 
restriction  and  anti-slavery,  there  were  a  few  anti-Congress 
writers  who  also  were  opposed  to  slavery  and  favored  restricting 
it.  The  number  of  writers  that  took  these  latter  positions  is, 
however,  almost  negligible.^-  The  circular  of  John  Scott, 
Missouri's  Territorial  Delegate,  to  the  people  of  Missouri  does 
not  properly  belong  to  this  class  of  writings  since  while  depre- 
cating slavery  it  still  stated  that  a  restriction  of  it  would  be 


This  body,  composed  of  the  leading  lawyers  of  St.  Louis,  favored  slavery  and 
wielded  an  almost  invincible  strength  during  this  period.  It  was  bitterly  op- 
posed by  the  Gazette  and  was  frequently  referred  to  as  the  "lawyer  junto." 

5"  Cf.  Note  49.  See  also  in  the  Missouri  Gazette,  May  26,  1819,  an  article 
by  "An  American,"  which  is  a  strong  emancipation  piece.  A  very  sarcastic 
article  written  by  "A  Republican  Slavedriver"  on  the  excessive  use  of  grand 
jury  presentments  and  the  beneficent  character  of  slavery  appeared  in  the  Gazette, 
Sept.  18,  1819.  A  restrictionist  article  by  "A  Republican  of  the  Jeflfersonian 
School"  appeared  in  the  Gazette  Feb.  23,  1820. 

"  A  series  of  four  articles  by  "Paciflcus"  appeared  in  the  Gazette,  May  12, 
19,  26  and  June  2,  1819,  along  this  line,  and,  while  favoring  the  Talmadge  amend- 
ment and  either  the  abolition  or  restriction  of  slavery,  these  articles  urged  ]Mis- 
souri  to  patiently  wait  for  Congressional  action.  A  similar  article  by  "Cato"  ap- 
peared in  the  Gazette,  June  16,  1819,  which,  while  favoring  emancipation,  thought 
there  was  little  to  be  feared  of  Congress  not  leaving  this  in  the  hands  of  Missouri. 
This  latter  article  is  not  a  real  pro-Congress  argument  although  the  writer  would 
hardly  have  grieved  or  criticised  if  Congress  had  fastened  a  slavery  restriction 
on  Missouri. 

"A  writer  under  the  nom-de-guerre  of  "One  of  the  People,"  whose  articles 
appeared  in  the  St.  Louis  Enquirer,  April  4,  1819,  said:  "I  do  not  think  slavery 
justifiable  or  beneficial;  but  it  is  for  ourselves,  and  not  for  Congress  to  decide 
that  question;"  etc.  Another  writer  under  the  nom-de-guerre  of  "A  Citizen  of 
Missovu-i"  said:  "I  shall  attempt,  Mr.  Editor,  to  convince  those  who  read  these 
remarks,  that  the  proposed  resolutions  were  unconstitutional;  that,  although 
slavery  is  anti-republican  and  unbecoming  a  great  nation  of  freemen,  still  that  it 
is  allowed  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  being  so,  that  Congress 
have  no  right  to  determine  about  it."  {Mo.  Gaz.,  April  28,  1819;  cf.  Also  Mo. 
Gaz.,    March   24,    1819). 

The  above  articles,  together  with  the  one  written  by  "A  Citizen  of  Missouri," 
which  appeared  in  the  Enquirer  July  21,  1819,  were  the  most  able  on  this  phase 
of  the  question  and  were  almost  in  a  class  to  themselves. 


108  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

"unfriendly  to   the  slaves  themselves   to  confine   them   to  the 
south."  ^^ 

The  mass  of  articles  written  in  1819  and  1820  in  Missouri 
by  those  who  protested  against  Congressional  restriction  of 
slavery  would  fill  a  volume.  These  articles,  however,  either 
refrained  from  a  discussion  of  slavery  or  advanced  arguments  for 
its  unrestricted  continuance."'^  There  were  some  that  dealt  in 
such  generalities  as  the  "evil"  or  "curse  of  slavery"  and  then 
proceeded  to  show  how  the  mitigation  of  this  "curse"  would  be 
accomplished  by  leaving  slavery  unrestricted  in  Missouri.  These 
latter  articles  were  simply  counterparts  of  some  of  the  speeches 
delivered  in  Congress  by  many  of  the  Representatives  from 
even  the  southern  states,  and  indicate  nothing  except  that 
slavery  in  1819  and  1820  was  generally  regarded  on  both  sides 
of  the  Mason  and  Dixon  line  as  an  evil.  The  north  wanted 
this  evil  abolished  or  at  least  lessened  by  restricting  the  new 
slave  territory;  the  south  desired  or  pretended  to  desire  to  miti- 
gate it  by  extending  slave  territory.     For  one  merely  to  have 


"  Mo.  IntelL,  July  16,  1819.  Following  is  an  extract  from  this  circular  of 
Scott's: 

"I  regret  as  much  as  any  person  can  do  the  existence  of  slavery  in  the  Unitt^d 
States;  I  think  it  wrong  in  itself,  nor  on  principle  would  I  be  understood  as  ad- 
vocating it;  but  I  trust  I  shall  always  be  the  advocate  of  the  people's  right  to 
decide  on  this  question,  as  on  all  others,  for  themselves,  leaving  to  their  own 
wisdom  and  forecast  the  adoption  of  such  a  Constitution,  and  the  enaction  of 
such  laws  as  they  shall  consider  best  comforts  with  their  prosperity  and  happiness. 
I  consider  it,  not  only  unfriendly  to  the  slaves  themselves  to  confine  them  to  the 
south,  but  wholly  incompetent  for  Congress  to  interfere  upon  the  subject,  being 
a  piece  of  domestic  policy  which  the  state  of  Missouri  has  a  clear  right  to  decide 
for  herself,  as  every  other  state  in  the  Union  has  done." 

»<  A  few  of  the  articles  of  this  nature  appeared  over  the  following  mwis-de- 
guerre  in  the  Missouri  Gazette  April  7.  1819,  "Hampden;"  April  14th  "Sydney"; 
April  21.  "Hampden,"  "Gracchus."  "A  Missourian;"  April  2Sth,  "Hampden;" 
May  5th,  "Hampden;"  May  12th,  "Sydney;"  June  UUh,  "Hampdon;"  Jura 
30th,  "C."  Many  others  were  also  printed  taking  a  position  of  disapproval  of 
Congressional  restriction;  these  either  advocated  slavery  without  any  restriction 
whatever  or  wercj  sili-iit  on  that  question. 

In  the  St.  Louis  Emiuircr  many  similar  articles  appeared  of  which  two  were 
over  the  following  noins-dc-gucrrc:  May  19,  1819.  "A  St.  Louis  Mechanic;" 
June  16th,  "A  Citizc'ti  of  St.   Louis,"  etc.  etc. 

And.  in  the  Missouri  Intclliycncer  some  of  tlu-  articles  appearrd  over  the 
following  noms-dc-guerre:  April  30,  1819.  "Epaminondas."  "A  Farmer;"  May 
7th.  "Epaminondas;"  May  21st.  "Epaminondas;"  May  28th,  "Atahualpa;" 
July  21st.  "Epaminondas;"  July  30th.  "A  Spectator;"  December  3d.  "Cato;" 
January  21.  1820.  "C^ato;"  February  l.st,  "Cato;"  February   LStli.  "A  (Mtlzen." 


Popular  Opinion  in  Missouri,  1819.  109 

stated  in  1819  or  1820  that  he  regarded  slavery  as  an  evil,  is 
of  little  consequence  in  itself. 

This  concludes  our  detailed  examination  of  those  five 
original  sources  of  historical  information  that  reveal  the  senti- 
ment in  Missouri  from  April  1819  to  April  1820  on  the  question 
of  the  restriction  of  slavery  as  attempted  by  Congress.  The 
main  question  under  consideration  here  has  been  the  attitude 
of  the  inhabitants  of  Missouri  Territory  over  the  attempted 
restriction  of  slavery  by  Congress,  but  there  has  also  been 
brought  to  light,  as  incidental  to  the  main  issue,  the  great,  if 
not  more  important,  question  of  slavery  itself.  As  has  been 
stated,  the  next  chapter  deals  with  the  slavery  proposition, 
and  it  was  only  to  prevent  a  duplication  in  the  use  of  source 
material  that  slavery  was  permitted  to  creep  into  this  one.  It 
must  be  emphasized,  however,  that  during  1819  slavery  became 
an  issue  in  Missouri  and  that  it  was  a  real  if  not  a  greater  casiis 
belli  of  the  inhabitants  of  this  territory  in  their  opposition  to 
Congressional  restriction,  the  apparent  declarations,  based  on 
constitutional  grounds,  of  some  prominent  men  and  public 
meetings   to   the   contrary   notwithstanding.^^ 

The  inhabitants  of  Missouri  in  1819  appear  to  have  been 
almost  a  unit  in  their  opposition  to  any  restriction  being  imposed 
by  Congress  on  slaverv^  in  their  proposed  state. °^  Only  one 
minor  public  gathering  and  perhaps  six  nom-de- guerre  writers 
favored    Congressional    restriction."     An    examination    of    the 


"  The  editor  of  Niles'  Register  seems  to  have  appreciated  this  point.  On 
October  2,  1819,  (Niles'  Register  XYII.  71.)  he  said  in  part:  "If  the  people  of  Mis- 
souri are  contending  for  the  abstract  question,  as  to  their  right  to  admit  slavery, 
if  they  please,  there  is  no  one,  we  presume,  that  would  refuse  to  listen  patiently 
to  a  discussion  of  the  merits  of  the  question;  but  if  they  are  thus  operated  upon 
from  a  desire  to  hold  slaves;  to  extend  this  cursed  blot  on  our  country  over  the 
immense  regions  west  of  the  Mississippi;  and  give  an  almost  boundless  expanse 
to  the  anti-republican  principles  which  belong  to  it,  and  thereby  render  more 
and  more  diflBcult  any  plan  which  a  more  enlightened  posterity  may  devise  to 
obliterate  this  stain  on  the  nation — it  is  impossible  that  any  humane  man  can 
wish  success  to  their  efforts,"  etc.  etc. 

"  The  foregoing  statement  is  based  on  the  source  material  already  examined. 
C/.,  Perkins  and  Peck,  Annals  of  the  West.  769,  second  ed.,  1850. 

'"  The  only  public  meeting  in  Missoiu-i  in  1819  that  adopted  resolutions 
favoring  Congressional  restriction  was  held  in  St.  Ferdinand  township,  St.  Louis 
county,  on  June  5th.  Althoiigh  this  meeting  was  strongly  pro-Congress  in  senti- 
ment, it  is  important  to  notice  that  just  one  month  later  at  a  Fourth  of  July  cele- 
bration held  in  the  same  township,  all  the  toasts  drunk  were  anti-Congress  in 


110  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

resolutions  adopted  at  public  meetings,  toasts  drunk  at  public 
dinners  and  celebrations,  presentments  of  Grand  Juries,  edi- 
torials, and  scores  of  articles  written  over  noms-de-guerre  shows 
conclusively  that  Missouri  was  overwhelmingly  opposed  to  any 
Congressional  restriction  of  slavery .^^  The  chief  arguments 
advanced  for  this  position  were  based:  (1)  on  the  United  States 
Constitution;  (2)  on  the  treaty  of  cession;  (3)  on  the  grounds  of 
policy  and  interest;  and  (4)  on  the  dictates  of  humanity  and 
the  welfare  of  the  slave. 

Practically  all  anti-Congress  literature  in  Missouri  set 
forth  the  constitutional  reason.  This  argument  was  advanced  in 
two  ways,  either  of  which  could  be  stated  without  taking  up  a  dis- 
cussion of  slavery.  First  it  was  urged  that  the  Constitution  gave 
Congress  the  power  to  admit  a  State  into  the  Union  but  did  not 
give  that  body  the  power  to  impose  any  restriction  on  a  state, 
except  that  its  government  should  be  republican  in  character, 
and  since  in  their  eyes  slavery  was  not  an  anti-republican  in- 
stitution, having  existed  before  and  after  the  formation  of  the 
nation,  it  did  not  fall  within  the  constitutional  restriction. 
Secondly,  it  was  declared  that  Congress  was  a  body  of  delegated 
powers,  and  since  the  constitution  had  not  given  Congress  the 
authority  to  regulate  slavery  in  a  state,  that  power  was  entirely 
within  the  sphere  of  state  action  and  was  subject  to  the  "iw- 
ternaV  or  ''municipal  control  of  the  State.  The  argument 
based  on  the  treaty  of  cession  was  also  advanced  in  practically 
all  of  the  Missouri  anti-Congress  literature  of  1819.  It  de- 
clared that  since  in  the  treaty  of  cession  the  United  States  had 
guaranteed  to  protect  the  property  of  the  citizens  of  the  Louis- 
iana Purchase,  therefore  Congress  could  not  place  a  restriction  on 
slavery  in  Missouri,  because  slaves  had  been  held  as  property  in 


language.  Either  there  was  a  change  in  sentiment,  or,  what  is  more  probable, 
the  first  meeting  did  not  represent  the  wishes  of  the  inhabitants  of  even  that 
township. 

The  smaller  Fourtli  of  .July  gathering  at  Lucas*  Spring  in  St.  Louis  was  not 
strictly  jjro-C'oiigress  in  sentiment  but  ratluT  had  <-onndcnct'  in  a  final  liappy 
solution  of  the  Missouri  (jucstion  by  tiie  national  li'KislaHnf. 

»•  It  is  of  inti'rest  to  notice  the  following  whicli  app(«arcd  in  Ailcs'  licoislir. 
October  2,  IKH)  (XVII.  72.):  "The  grand  juries  and  otiier  iud)lie  bodies  of  the 
territory  of  Missouri,  are  loud  in  dcnuiu-iat ions  of  the  i)rore(>dings  liad  at  tlie  last 
session  of  (Congress,  concerning  thr  admission  of  slavery  into  the  jJropostMl  .State." 


Popular  Opinion  in  Missouri,  1819.  Ill 

Louisiana  prior  to  and  after  1803.  The  third  and  fourth  set  of 
arguments  involved  a  discussion  of  slavery,  and  we  will  consider 
them  in  their  proper  place.  The  large  mass  of  anti-Congress 
literature  did  not,  however,  contain  reasons  which  brought  for- 
ward or  made  prominent  the  slavery  question  itself.  In  fact 
many  of  the  anti-Congress  articles  expressly  stated  that  the 
question  under  consideration  in  no  way  involved  the  discussion 
of  slavery  but  was  one  which  rested  entirely  on  a  legal  basis. 

The  sentiment  in  Missouri  in  1819  regarding  slavery,  as 
revealed  in  the  various  sources  of  historical  information  already 
examined,  is  not  so  clearly  defined.  As  a  general  proposition  it 
may  be  stated  that  throughout  the  territory  slavery  as  an  in- 
stitution was  deprecated  and  was  regarded  as  a  great  evil,  even 
as  a  ci^rse.  This  attitude  of  the  inhabitants  of  Missouri  towards 
the  institution  did  not,  as  one  might  logically  conclude,  carry 
with  it  a  desire  for  either  emancipation  or  restriction.  It  was  a 
position  that  was  reflected  in  many  of  the  speeches  of  even  the 
southern  members  of  Congress,  who  at  the  same  time  strove 
hard  to  prevent  restrictions  being  placed  on  slavery.  They 
were  willing,  in  most  cases,  to  waive  the  moral  issue  since  the 
ark  of  the  Constitution  was  deemed  strong  enough  to  repel  any 
attack  along  this  line.  History  and  law  favored  slavery;  these 
combined  with  the  political  and  economic  strength  of  that  in- 
stitution were  so  powerful  as  to  overcome  the  moral  opposition 
to  it.  Although  constitutional  and  economic  arguments  favor- 
ing the  restriction  of  slaver^'  were  advanced  both  in  and  out  of 
Congress,  the  stronghold  of  the  restrictionists  rested  on  a  moral 
foundation.  On  the  other  hand,  there  were  some  advocates  of 
slavery  who  also  used  the  moral  argument  as  well  as  the  con- 
stitutional and  historical,  but  there  were  few. 

In  Missouri  in  1819  the  six  anonymous  writers  and  the 
single  public  meeting  that  favored  the  attempted  slavery  re- 
striction of  Congress,  were  opposed  to  slavery.  There  were 
also  three  or  four  nom -de- guerre  writers  w^ho  while  opposing 
Congressional  restriction  also  opposed  slavery  and  favored 
State  restriction.     Including  several  editorials  in  the  Missouri 


112  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

Gazette,  these  few  articles  are  the  total  amount  of  anti-slavery 
literature  that  appeared  in   Missouri  Territory  in   1819.^® 

On  the  other  hand  there  were  a  number  of  articles  and  reso- 
lutions that  deprecated  the  existence  of  slavery,  regarded  it  as 
a  curse  and  as  an  evil,  and  some  even  professed  to  favor  a 
national  emancipation,  while  at  the  same  time  these  same 
articles  opposed  any  restriction  being  placed  on  slavery  in  Missouri, 
whether  by  Congress  or  by  the  state.  The  arguments  used 
were  based  on  policy  and  interest,  and  on  the  grounds  of  hu- 
manity and  the  general  welfare  of  the  slaves.  These  arguments 
were  especially  directed  against  Congressional  restriction  but 
are  of  equal  force  as  indicating  the  general  anti-restriction  posi- 
tion of  the  authors  advancing  them.  The  general  method  of 
reasoning  was:  first,  that  restriction  of  slavery  would  tend  to 
stop  southern  immigration  into  Missouri  if  not  put  an  end  to  it 
altogether;  would  perhaps  produce  greater  evils  than  already 
existed  as  restriction  approached  emancipation;  and  would  be 
an  unjust  interference  with  established  property  rights,  and  a 
direct  injustice  to  those  who  had  immigrated  with  their  slaves 
to  Missouri  thinking  slavery  would  be  unrestricted  here:  second, 
that  restriction  of  slavery  in  Missouri  if  enforced  would  work 
an  injustice  to  the  slaves  by  keeping  them  in  the  crowded  slave 


"Ferdinand  Ernst,  a  German,  in  his  "Travels  in  Illinois  in  IS19"  came  to 
St.  Louis  on  July  27th,  and  in  a  letter  dated  .July  30th.  Edwardsville,  Illinois, 
wrote,  however,  as  follows:  "This  city  is  the  seat  of  the  territorial  government 
of  the  Missouri  territory.  The  motion  to  be  advanced  to  a  state  and  to  have  its 
own  constitution  met  with  difficulties  in  Congress,  since  Conmress  wisliod  to  im- 
pose the  condition  that  slavery  should  be  abolished  in  the  state  of  Missouri.  Now 
one  finds  most  every  day  in  the  newspapers  paragraphs  concerning  this  subject, 
the  majority  of  which  are  almost  always  zealously  opposed  to  the  introduction 
of  slavery  in  tlie  state  of  Missouri.  Everywhere  much  is  being  written  now 
concerning  the  possibility  of  getting  rid  of  slavery  as  an  acknowledged  evil  in  the 
entire  compass  of  the  free  states,  so  that  people  in  general  actually  entertain  the 
hope  of  seeing  even  the  southern  states  soon  freed  from  this  plague."  {Illinois 
State  Historical  Library  Publications  No.  8,  pp.  IfKi-irj-l.)  The  letter  from  which 
the  foregoing  extract  was  taken  is  dated  "Edwardsvill(>.  .July  30,  1S20. "  Tliere 
was  either  a  mistaken  made  by  the  writer  as  regards  \\w  year  or  a  typograpliical 
error  in  this  respect,  since  it  is  the  only  letter  dated  ISiiO  and  undoubtedly  should 
have  been    IHi'.). 

The  <5xplanati<)n  of  l<>nst's  statement,  wliich  is  contrary  to  tlu>  actual  facts, 
may  be  that  he  was  Influenced  by  the  anti-slavery  articles  in  the  Edwdrdsviltc 
(Illinois)  Spectator:  certainly  his  visits  in  .Missouri  Ti>rritory  was  too  short  for 
him  to  have  gained  any  reliable  information  relating  to  the  subject  he  commented 
on. 


Popular  Opinion  in  Missouri,  1819.  113 

districts  of  the  south,  where  their  condition  was  worse  and  their 
hardships  greater  than  farther  north,  and  would  not  lessen  the 
number  of  slaves  but  only  diminish  slave  territory;  and  if  not 
enforced,  it  would  result  in  as  little  permanent  good  as  it  had 
in   Illinois. 

It  may  be  definitely  stated  that  during  1819,  i.  e.,  after  the 
adjournment  of  Congress  in  that  year,  the  sentiment  in  Mis- 
souri on  the  question  of  statehood,  Congressional  restriction 
of  slavery,  and  slavery  as  an  institution,  expressed  itself  in  a 
united  stand  of  protest  against  the  failure  of  Congress  to  admit 
Missouri;  in  a  practically  united  front  of  opposition,  based 
mainly  on  constitutional  grounds,  to  any  Congressional  restric- 
tion of  slavery  in  Missouri ;  in  a  more  or  less  general  condemnation 
of  slavery  in  the  abstract,  wherever  that  institution  was  men- 
tioned, and  a  politic  course  of  comparative  silence  regarding  its 
restriction  by  Missouri. 

There  are  several  subjects  in  this  connection  that  could 
have  been  discussed  with  much  interest,  but  as  they  rest  so 
entirely  on  an  academic  basis  their  historical  value  would  be 
of  small  enduring  worth.  For  example,  to  what  extent  was 
Missouri's  opposition  in  1819  to  Congressional  restriction  due 
to  the  efforts  of  her  leading  men  and  slave  owners?  Or,  to  what 
extent  did  the  sentiment  of  Missourians  on  Congressional  re- 
striction force  her  leaders  to  declare  against  it?  Was  Missouri's 
condemnation  of  slavery  in  the  abstract  a  declaration  of  policy 
in  order  to  propitiate  certain  northern  Congressmen,  or  was  it 
an  expression  based  on  conviction?  Would  Missouri  have 
framed  a  constitution  and  set  in  working  a  state  government, 
as  Benton  and  others  threatened,  if  Congress  had  not  passed 
an  enabling  act  in  1820?  How  much  did  the  Spanish  land 
claim  policy  of  the  United  States  Congress  influence  the  in- 
habitants of  Missouri  in  their  opposition  to  that  body?  Data 
regarding  some  of  these  queries  have  already  been  set  forth: 
new  facts  will  be  found  in  the  next  chapter. 


M  S — 8 


CHAPTER  IV. 
POPULAR  OPINION  IN  MISSOURI  IN  1820. 

ELECTION    OF   DELEGATES. 

The  news  of  the  passage  of  the  Missouri  EnabHng  Act 
spread  quickly  over  the  country;  Thomas  Hemstead  was  the 
messenger  to  Missouri.  He  reached  Jackson,  Missouri,  on  his 
way  to  St.  Louis  on  March  21st. ^  He  was  received  in  St. 
Louis  with  great  rejoicing.  The  citizens  of  that  town  expressed 
much  satisfaction  on  receipt  of  the  good  news.  A  local  chron- 
icler wrote:  "The  town  was  generally  and  splendidly  il- 
luminated; several  transparencies  were  displayed.  Among 
others  a  very  handsome  one  displaying  the  American  Eagle 
surmounting  the  Irish  Harp.  We  were  diverted  by  another, 
representing  a  slave  in  great  spirits,  rejoicing  at  the  permission 
granted  by  Congress  to  bring  slaves  into  so  fine  a  country  as 
Missouri. "2  By  April  1st  the  pioneers  of  the  vast  Boone's 
Lick  country  on  the  frontier  read  with  joy  this  item  in  the 
Missouri  Intelligencer:  "Pleasing  Intelligence — We  have  the 
pleasure  of  laying  before  our  readers  the  gratifying  intelligence 
that  the  Bill  for  the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union 
UNRESTRICTED,  has  passed  both  houses  of  Congress,''  etc. 

The  celebration  over  the  passage  of  the  Enabling  Act  had 
hardly  ended  in  Missouri  before  the  question  of  electing  dele- 
gates to  a  constitutional  convention  became  the  important 
topic  of  discussion.  This  question  made  prominent  the  same 
problem  that  had  convulsed  Washington,  D.  C,  for  two  years — 
the  problem  of  the  restriction  or  the  non-restriction  of  slavery 
in  Missouri.  "It  appeared  that  the  political  storm  had  not 
spent  its  fury,  and  had  passed  from  the  last  to  rage  with  violence 
nearer  the ,  western  horizon."  ^  There  was,  however,  this 
difference  between  these  two  political  storms:  the  national 
struggle  was  between  forces  of  equal  strength;  the  local  struggle 

«  Houck,  Jlist.  Mo..  III.  24S. 
»  A/o.  Ga:.,  Apr.  T),  1H2(). 
•  Edwards,  Ureal    West,  322. 

(Ill) 


Popular  Opinion  in  Missouri  in  1820.  115 

was  between  a  small  group  of  able,  determined,  conscientious 
men  on  the  one  hand  and  the  overwhelming  majority  of  the 
people  on  the  other  hand.  The  local  struggle  never  meant 
more  than  a  fight  for  principles  against  overwhelming  odds. 
The  press  of  the  State  with  but  one  exception,  the  bench  and 
bar  of  Missouri  with  only  several  notable  exceptions,  the  wealth 
and  social  position  of  Missouri's  leaders,  and  the  great  mass  of 
Missourians  themselves  stood  together  for  an  unrestricted, 
unlimited  system  of  slavery  in  the  new  state.  Few  and  none 
of  prominence,  had  the  temerity  to  publicly  favor  abolition. 
The  division  in  Missouri  was  between  the  few  hundreds  of  voters 
who  favored  a  constitutional  limitation  upon  the  immigration 
of  slaves  into  Missouri  after  a  period  of  years,  and  the  thousands 
who  would  not  permit  any  tampering  with  slavery.  The  one 
sought  merely  slavery  restriction:  the  other  slavery  free  and 
unrestricted.  The  former  dreamed  of  a  day  when  slavery 
would  die:  the  latter  stood  for  the  perpetuation  of  slavery. 
The  fight  was  on  between  restrictionists  and  anti-restriction- 
ists. 

In  such  a  fight  the  advantage  of  numbers  and  wealth  was 
all  on  the  side  of  the  pro-slavery  men.  From  the  time  of  the 
American  occupation  of  the  Northwest  Territory  much  of  the 
immigration  to  Upper  Louisiana  had  been  prompted  by  a  desire 
to  escape  such  slavery  restrictions  as  were  imposed  in  the 
Northwest  Ordinance."*  The  settlers  in  Missouri  during  the 
territorial  period  had  come  principally  from  the  five  slave  states 
of  Virginia,  Kentucky,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina  and 
Tennessee.  From  the  spring  of  1819  to  the  spring  of  1820  a 
constant  stream  of  these  southern  immigrants  with  their  slaves 
and  flocks  poured  into  Missouri.  Such  an  influx  of  population 
had  never  before  been  seen  in  this  district.  All  the  Missouri 
writers  of  that  day  were  impressed  with  its  magnitude  and  all 
agreed  in  their  accounts  regarding  the  southern  character  of 
the  new  settlers.^     The  South  was  sending  forth  its  most  ener- 


*  Dunn,  Slavery  Petitions  and  Papers,  in  Ind.  Hist.  Soc.  Pub.,  II.  No.  12, 
pp.    13ff. 

^  Mo.  Gaz.,  June  9,  Oct.  20,  1819,  Jan.  26,  1820;  Niles'  Register,  XVII.  288 
(Dec.  25,  1819);  Flint,  Recollections,  p.  201. 


116  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

getic  and  virile  families  into  the  rich  bottom  lands  of  Missouri. 
While  Congress  was  debating  slavery  in  Missouri,  the  South 
was  settling  it  with  her  sons. 

This  incoming  of  southern  settlers  during  the  late  territorial 
period  had  definitely  established  slavery  as  an  institution  in 
Missouri.^  Slavery  had  existed  in  upper  Louisiana  for  decades 
and  had  been  an  object  of  solicitude  as  early  as  1805,  but  it 
was  not  until  the  Americans  from  the  south  brought  in  their 
thousands  of  negroes  that  its  economic  position  was  securely 
founded.  In  1810  the  slave  population  of  the  Territory  had  been 
only  3,011,  in  1820  this  had  increased  to  10,222.'^  As  there 
were  only  14,767  white  males  over  eighteen  years  of  age  in 
Missouri  in  1820,  it  is  evident  that  there  was  probably  a  suffi- 
cient number  of  slaves  in  Missouri  to  have  allowed  at  least  one 
to  every  male  property  owner. ^  These  figures  show  the  strength 
of  slavery  in  Missouri  in  1820,  the  character  of  the  inhabitants 
of  the  State  served  to  buttress  this  strength.  Slavery  was  an 
important  factor  in  the  economic  life  of  Missourians  at  this 
time.  Much  wealth  was  locked  up  in  slaves  and  much  wealth 
was  being  produced  by  slaves.  Criticism  of  slavery  as  a  poor 
economic  system  in  Missouri  is  not  found  in  any  of  the  source 
material  of  that  day.  We  are  driven  to  the  conclusion  that 
from  an  economic  point  of  view  alone,  slavery  in  Missouri  in 
1820  was  regarded  as  indispensible  to  the  life  of  the  State. ^ 

The  campaign  preceding  the  election  of  delegates  to  a 
constitutional  convention  and  the  election  itself  pictured 
clearly  public  opinion  in  Missouri  in  1820  on  this  question  of 
slavery  and  on  other  important  issues.     F'or  only  seven  counties 


'  Trexler,  Slavery  in  Mo.,  1804-1865,  in  Johns  Hopkins  Univ.  Hist.  Studies. 
XXXII.   No.  2.  pp.   l()5fT. 

'  U.  S.  Census,  Statistical  View  and  Schedule,   1790-1830.  pp.  23.  27. 

•  Ibid.,  p.  23.  Our  data  is  insufficient  for  us  to  detcrniino  tlio  extent  of  slave 
lioldinKs  in  Mi.ssouri  in  1820. 

»  Houck,  op.  cit..  III.  2.50.  The  view  taken  by  Mr.  Houck  is  tliat  had  no 
attempt  been  nia(io  by  ("Jongress  "to  prt)l»lbit  slavery"  in  Mis.sourl.  "slavery 
would  have  been  e.xeliided  from  the  new  state."  Prof.  Trexler,  who  made  an 
ext(!nded  study  of  this  <iuesti()n  takes  tlie  view  that  slavery  was  economically 
profitable  in  Missouri  in  1820.  that  the  people  of  the  State  favored  slavery  in 
itself,  and  that  ('onuressicjual  action  was  only  the  occasion  of  the  outbreak  of 
anti-restriction  literature   lliat  issued   from    Missouri.      ('/.,   Trexler,   op.   cit..   pp. 

looir. 


Popular  Opinion  in  Missouri  in  1820.  117 

is  pre-election  data  obtainable  on  these  points,  but  in  these 
counties  lived  nearly  two-thirds  of  the  population  of  Missouri. 
They  include  the  counties  of  Howard,  Cooper,  Lincoln,  Wash- 
ington,  Cape  Girardeau,  Jefferson  and  St.   Louis. ^"^ 

In  Howard  and  Cooper  counties  public  opinion  was  over- 
whelmingly pro-slavery  and  anti-restrictionistic.  Of  the  twenty 
candidates  who  offered  themselves  for  election  in  Howard 
county,  not  one  publicly  favored  slavery  restriction;  and  of 
the  five  delegates  elected,  four  stated  their  advocacy  of  slavery 
and  of  the  immigration  of  slaves — the  other  delegate,  a  slave 
owner,  having  put  forth  no  argument  for  his  election  except  his 
name.^^  The  candidates  in  Cooper  county  made  no  public 
declaration  of  principles  that  appeared  in  the  press.  Two  of 
the  three  elected  were,  however,  slave-owners  and  all  were 
natives  of  either  Virginia  or  Kentucky. ^^ 

The  Boone's  Lick  people  appeared  to  have  been  less  con- 
cerned about  slavery  restriction  than  the  historians  of  a  century 
later.  Apparently  no  restrictionist  would  have  stood  a  chance 
of  election  there  and  would  probably  have  fared  poorly  to  have 
openly  declared  himself.  These  western  pioneers  were  of  one 
mind  on  slavery  and  never  feared  that  Missourians  would 
interfere  with  that  institution.  Other  questions  were,  however, 
matters  for  public  discussion.  They  regarded  a  correct  ap- 
portionment of  delegates  and  representatives,  the  central 
location  of  the  seat  of  government,  white  male  suffrage,  the 
elective  principle  as  applied  to  the  executive  and  legislative 
departments,  a  sound  and  independent  judiciary,  public  edu- 
cation, the  absence  of  property  qualifications  for  voters,  con- 
servative banking  laws,  and  a  bill  of  rights,  as  being  important 
questions   on   which    the   convention    might   decide    adversely. 


'"The  combined  white  and  colored  population  of  these  counties  was  42,669: 
the  total  population  of  the  State  was  66,586.     C/.,  U.  S.  Census,  Schedule  p.  23. 

"  See  files  of  the  Mo.  Intel!.,  for  April  and  May,  1820.  The  four  delegates 
were  Green,  Reeves,  Burckhartt  and  Findlay;  the  one  was  Ray,  a  native  of 
Kentucky  and  a  slave-owner. 

»2  Lillard  and  Wallace  were  slave-owners,  the  one  a  native  of  Virginia,  the 
other  of  Kentucky.     The  third  delegate,  Clark,  was  a  native  of  Virginia. 

The  Mo.  Intell.,  May  13,  1820,  states  that  there  were  eight  candidates  in 
Cooper  county:  the  Hist,  of  Cooper  Co.,  p.  75,  gives  a  list  of  twelve  candidates 
with  the  vote  recorded  for  each. 


118  Missouri  Si  niggle  for  Statelwod. 

These  were  the  questions  that  were  discussed  with  much  vigor 
in  the  Missouri  Intelligencer  preceding  the  election.  These 
were  the  vitally  important  questions  regarding  which  doubt 
was  entertained  of  their  final  issue  in  the  new  constitution  to 
be  framed.  Slavery  was  regarded  as  a  practically  settled 
question  on  which  there  was  a  unanimity  of  opinion,  but  an 
easternly  situated  state  capitol  or  a  restricted  suffrage  was  an 
actual  possibility  and  the  Howard  and  Cooper  county  people 
wanted  delegates  they  could  trust  when  such  questions  were 
before  the  convention. 

In  Lincoln  county  only  four  candidates  appeared.  Two 
of  these  favored  restricting  the  period  of  slavery  immigration 
fearing  lest  Missouri  deal  in  slaves  as  articles  of  commerce; 
the  third  stated  that  he  favored  slavery;  and  the  fourth,  Henry — 
who  was  elected — made  no  statement  that  appeared  in  the 
newspapers. ^^  Henry  was  a  large  slave-owner  and  his  election 
is  sufficient  proof  of  the  slavery  sentiment  in  Lincoln  county. 

In  Washington  county  public  opinion  on  slavery  is  sig- 
nificantly revealed  in  the  vote  that  was  cast  on  election  day. 
The  votes  cast  were  four  hundred  and  fifty-three.  If  each 
voter  voted  for  three  delegates — the  number  allotted  Wash- 
ington county — there  would  have  been  a  total  of  one  thousand 
three  hundred  and  fifty-nine  delegate  votes.  At  Mine  a  Burton 
there  were  one  thousand  two  hundred  and  eight  delegate  votes 
cast,  and  of  these  only  sixty-one  were  for  restrictionists.^^ 
Further,  all  three  delegates  elected  were  slave-owners. 

In  Cape  Girardeau  county  thirteen  candidates  were  before 
the  voters.  Only  one,  George  H.  Scripps,  was  an  avowed 
restrictionist.'"^  The  others  who  stated  their  position  on  this 
question  were  all  strong  pro-slavery  men  and  non-restriction- 
ists.*^  The  five  delegates  elected  were  anti-restrictionists, 
pro-slavery  men  and  had  all  publicly  stated  their  position. 
The  lowest  vote  received  by  any  of  these  fi\e  was  more  than 
twice  as  high  as  that  cast  for  Scripps,   the  restrictionist ;  and 


^*  Mo.  Gaz.,  Apr.   12.   19.  2«).   1S2(). 
"St.  L.  Enq..  May   10.   1820;  Scliarf.  1.  FMi. 
^^  Jackson  (Mo.)  lltralU,  Apr.  22.   1820. 
'•  Ibid.,  April  H.   ITy,  22.  29,   1820. 


Popular  Opinio7i  in  Missouri  in  1820.  119 

four  candidates  not  elected  also  received  higher  votes  than 
Scripps.^^  This  shows  the  preponderating  anti-restriction  public 
opinion  in  Cape  Girardeau  county.  The  Rev.  Timothy  Flint, 
who  resided  in  Jackson,  Missouri,  from  December,  1819,  to 
the  spring  of  1820,  said  in  this  connection:  "The  slave  ques- 
tion was  discussed  with  a  great  deal  of  asperity,  and  no  person 
from  the  northern  states,  unless  his  sentiments  were  unequiv- 
ocally expressed,  had  any  hopes  of  being  elected  to  the  con- 
vention, that  formed  the  constitution."  ^^  Four  of  the  five 
delegates  elected  were  natives  of  slave  states;  the  other,  a  native 
of  Ireland. 

In  Jefferson  county  the  slavery  question  was  the  im- 
portant one.  A  small  but  determined  minority  organized  to 
elect  a  restrictionist  delegate.  A  meeting  of  restrictionists  was 
held  at  the  house  of  John  Geiger  in  Herculaneum  on  April 
22nd  and  David  Bryant  presided  and  Benjamin  Lundy  was 
appointed  secretary. ^^  This  meeting  resolved  that  slavery  was 
an  evil  and  should  be  limited  in  Missouri;  that  it  was  inex- 
pedient at  that  time  to  urge  abolition;  that  a  freehold  suffrage 
qualification  was  anti-republican;  and  that  ballot  voting  was 
a  security  against  "the  vapouring  bullies  of  aristocracy  from 
extorting  from  the  timid  and  the  weak,  a  soul-degrading  ac- 
quiescence in  their  tyranical  proscriptions."  The  meeting  also 
passed  a  resolution  recommending  Abner  Vansant  as  a  can- 
didate to  the  convention,  and  another  naming  a  committee  of 
five  to  draft  an  address  to  the  electors.  The  committee  re- 
ported an  address,  which  had  probably  been  previously  pre- 
pared, which  was  ordered  printed  on  handbills  and  distributed 
among  the  voters,  and  which  was  also  ordered  printed  in  the 
Missouri  Gazette. 

The  address  was  a  remarkably  clear  and  concise  argument 
in   favor   of   slavery   restriction   in   Missouri.     Contrasts   were 


^^  Jackson  (Mo.)  Herald,  May  6.  13,  1820.  Buckner  received  the  smallest 
vote  of  the  five  delegates  elected.  He  received  two  hundred  and  forty-one 
votes;  Scripps,  one  hundred  and  twelve  votes;  Bollinger,  Ellis,  Ranney  and 
Lewis,  all  pro-slavery  men,  received  more  votes  than  Scripps,  altho  they  were 
not  elected  delegates. 

"Flint's  Recollections,  p.  214.     (Kirkpatrick). 

'•All  information  relating  to  Jefferson  county  was  obtained  from  the  Mo. 
Gaz.,  April  26,   1820. 


120  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

drawn  between  free  and  slave  states,  such  noted  statesmen  as 
Clay  and  Jefferson  were  quoted  with  force,  and  an  appeal  was 
made  to  the  inherent  ideas  of  justice  in  the  breasts  of  Americans. 
A  saner,  more  temperate,  and  more  forceful  anti-slavery  docu- 
ment is  not  met  with  in  the  early  history  of  Missouri.  Its 
author  performed  well  his  duty  and  it  is  to  be  regretted  that 
his  name  will  probably  never  be  known. 

Acting  in  accordance  with  the  resolutions  adopted  at  this 
meeting  Abner  Vansant  made  public  statement  of  his  sentiments 
on  the  questions  considered  and  agreed  to  the  fundamental 
acts  of  the  restrictionist  meeting.  Despite  the  clear  cut  issues 
presented  the  voters  in  Jefferson  county  and  despite,  further, 
the  appearance  of  two  anti-restrictionist  candidates,  Samuel 
Hammond  and  John  W.  Honey,  the  restrictionists  were  defeated. 
Hammond,  a  wealthy  land-owner  and  slave-holder,  was  elected 
to  represent  Jefferson  county. 

It  was  in  St.  Louis  county,  the  second  in  both  slave  and 
free  population  in  the  Territory,  that  the  most  bitter  and  de- 
termined fight  was  waged  between  restrictionists  and  anti- 
restrictionists.-*^  Not  only  were  the  restrictionists  many  times 
stronger  in  numbers  in  St.  Louis  county  than  in  the  other  dis- 
tricts, but  they  were  better  organized,  more  ably  led,  and  were 
alone  in  having  the  warm  support  of  a  local  Missouri  news- 
paper, the  Missouri  Gazette}^  Adding  bitterness  to  the  cam- 
paign in  St.  Louis  county  were  the  intense  personal  enmity 
of  the  two  local  editors,  Thomas  H.  Benton  of  the  Enquirer 
and  Joseph  Charless  of  the  Gazette,  the  rivalry  of  such  opposing 
lawyers  and  politicians  as  Rufus  Pettibone  and  Rufus  Easton 
on  the  one  hand  and  David  Barton  and  Edward  Bates  on  the 
other,  and  the  blood  feud  between  Thomas  H.  Benton,  ihe 
duellist,  and  his  victim's  father,  John  B.  C.  Lucas.  The 
struggle  here  was  not  only  a  fight  over  personalities  but  also 


«»  Howard  county,  the  most  populous.  !ia(l  11.31'.)  whites.  2.()S<)  slaves,  and 
18  free  colored  in  1.S20;  .St.  Louis.  H.OM  white.  I.HIO  slaves,  and  l'.)C.  fiiv  colored, 
besides  29  others  free.      U.  S.   Census,   1830.  Schedule,  p.   23. 

"The  Mo.  Inlcll.,  Franklin,  Howard  county;  tlie  Missouri  Herald.  .Jackson 
Capo  Girardeau  county,  and  the  St.  Louis  Enq.,  were  all  pro-slavery  and  anti- 
restriction  papers.  The  Mo.  Cm.  alone  championed  restriction  principles.  Tlie 
first  issues  of  the  Missourian,  St.  C'harh!s,  that  wi're  examined  by  us  were  dated 
after  the  election  had  taken  placiv 


josKPn  en.\Ri,i-.ss. 

I'"njm  Hoiick's  Hist.  Mo    III.  65. 


THOMAS  H.  HKNTON. 
l-n.m  Houck's  Ilist.  Mo.  III.  2^s. 


EDWARD   BATES. 
From  Houck's  Hist  Mo.  III.   is. 


Ai,h.\A.\UhR   .\k.\AlR. 
Krom  Houck's  Hist.  .Mo.  III.  ^5?. 


PIERRE  CHOUTEAU.  IR 
From  Houck's  Hist.  Mo.  III.  254. 


WILLIAM  G.  PEITUS. 
From  Houck's  Hist.  Mo.  III.  z^o. 


SOME  PROMIXEXT  ST.  L0U1S.\.\S   IX    1S20. 


72S34— 120 


Popular  Opinion  in  Missouri  in  IS 20.  121 

over  principles.  Barton,  Benton  and  some  of  their  friends 
were  not  only  attacked  for  being  bachelors,  for  being  debauched, 
and  for  forming  a  lawyer  clique,  but  were  also  accused  of  being 
anti-restrictionists,  and  of  being  advocates  of  freehold  suffrage 
and  viva  voce  voting;  Lucas  was  opposed  not  only  because  of 
his  record  as  one  of  the  board  of  commissioners  of  the  United 
States  for  adjusting  Spanish  land  claims  and  because  of  his 
personal  enemies,  but  also  because  he  was  a  restrictionist. 
Although  this  was  not  the  first  political  campaign  waged  in 
St.  Louis  county  or  in  the  Territory,  it  was  one  of  the  most 
determined  and  bitter  prior  to  the  State  election  in  August, 
1820.  The  secret  and  the  open  caucus  were  in  notice  and  the 
popular  meeting  of  those  days  was  also  present.  The  issues 
were  clearly  drawn  and  the  candidates  definitely  placed:  the 
stake  was  the  election  of  eight  delegates,  three  more  than  any 
other  Missouri  county  was  apportioned,  to  Missouri's  first 
constitutional  convention.  Such  a  stake  was  as  fully  appre- 
ciated at  that  time  as  it  would  be  today.  These  eight  delegates 
acting  together  would  control  with  their  own  votes  alone 
twenty  per  cent  of  the  entire  convention  and  would  form 
thirty-eight  and  one-half  per  cent  or  nearly  two-fifths  of  a 
majority.  Such  was  the  importance  of  the  St.  Louis  county 
campaign  and  election. 

The  anti-restrictionist  candidates  were  divided  into  one 
large  group  and  two'^small  ones.  All  three  groups  publicly 
held  this  in  common/that  they  opposed  placing  a  constitutional 
restriction  on  the  iipportation  of  slaves  into  Missouri.  United 
in  being  anti-restmctionists  they  differed  however  on  other 
points.  The  most  important  group  of  restrictionists  was  such 
by  virtue  of  numbers,  ability,  organization  and  power.  It 
originally  consisted  of  thirteen  candidates  although  only  twelve 
publicly  declared  themselves.--  These  thirteen  were  David 
Barton,  Edward  Bates,  Thomas  H.  Benton,  Pierre  Chouteau, 
Jr.,  G.  W.  Ferguson,  Henry  S.  Geyer,  Wilson  P.  Hunt,  M.  P. 
Leduc,  Mathias  McGirk,  Alexander  McNair,  Bernard  Pratte, 
William  Rector,  and  John  C.  Sullivan.-^     Benton's  name  was 


i^Mo.  Gaz.,  April  19,  1820,  editorial. 

^^Mo.  Gaz.,  April  12,  19,  26,  May  3,  10,  1820. 


122  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

never  listed  with  the  other  candidates  in  the  newspapers  but 
there  were  several  petitions  in  circulation  requesting  his  can- 
didacy. It  does  not  appear,  however,  that  these  petitions, 
were  popular.^^  Since  there  were  only  eight  delegates  to  elect, 
the  thirteen  anti-restrictionists  of  this  group  decided  to  select 
eight  of  their  number  as  the  running  candidates  and  the  other 
five  were  to  resign,  thus  increasing  the  chances  of  the  ticket. 
Each  of  the  thirteen  candidates  appointed  a  deputy  to  repre- 
sent him  and  these  thirteen  deputies  held  a  private  meeting 
in  St.  Louis  on  April  10th.  At  this  meeting  ballots  were  cast 
and  the  following  seven  candidates  w^ere  decided  upon:  David 
Barton,  Edward  Bates,  Wilson  P.  Hunt,  Alexander  McNair, 
Bernard  Pratte,  William  Rector  and  John  C.  Sullivan.  There 
was  a  tie  between  Chouteau  and  Benton,  and,  as  the  other  four 
candidates  were  apparently  dropped,  the  contest  was  between 
these  two.  The  decision  was  finally  given  in  favor  of  Chou- 
teau. The  other  candidates  publicly  resigned  and  the  lawyer 
slate  of  the  foregoing  eight  candidates  was  placed  before  the 
people.-^  Besides  this  caucus  meeting  there  was  a  public 
meeting  of  the  anti-restrictionists  at  Florissant.  Some  at  this 
meeting  opposed  the  lawyers'  ticket  but  it  appears  that  the 
eight  candidates  were  finally  endorsed.-^  This  ticket  was  the 
regular  anti-restriction  slate,  it  had  organization  and  agree- 
ment back  of  it,  and  it  was  supported  by  the  anti-restriction 
organ,  the  Enquirer.  Further,  it  represented  the  radical  pro- 
slavery  sentiment  of  the  county  and  stood  before  the  voters 
principally  on  that  issue.  Its  campaign  slogan  might  well 
have   been — Slavery    Unrestricted   for    Missouri.-^" 


««  Mo.  Gaz.,  April  2(5,   1820. 

"Mo.  Gaz..  April  1«).  2(),  1S2().  Tlie  charKO  was  made  by  tlu'  opposition 
that  Chouteau  could  not  sjx^uk  EiiKlish  and  that  only  several  days  ht>fore  the 
meeting  of  tlie  caucus  had  Riven  in  liis  testimony  in  French  by  means  of  an  in- 
terpreter before  the  district  court.  Mo.  Gaz.,  April  2(5.  1820.  "An  Elector." 
Cf..  Mo.  Gaz.,  May   10.   1820.  editorial. 

"  A/o.   Gaz.,   April   2(5,    1820.    "1." 

"Chouteau  declared  himself  only  on  the  <iu(>s(ion  of  slavery  {\fo.  Gaz., 
April  10,  1820);  H unt  foolislily  went  into  details  re^ardinK'  his  anti-restriction 
principles  and  went  so  far  as  to  practically  defeat  iiis  major  premisr,  to  this  may 
easily  b(^  attributed  his  defeat  at  the  polls  (ibid..  April  10,  1820):  McNair  was 
for  unrestricted  slav<Ty  and  also  for  friu',  white  male  sutfraKe  based  on  a«e.  resi- 
dence and  a  slight   tax   qualidcation    {ibid.,   April   2(),    1820);    Hectors   principles 


Popular  Opinion  in  Missouri  in  1820.  123 

The  second  group  of  anti-restrictionists  were  composed  of 
three  candidates,  John  S.  Ball,  Risdon  H.  Price,  and  Thomas 
F.  Riddick.  These  men  were  also  for  unrestricted  slavery  in 
Missouri,  but  they  were  running  independently  of  the  caucus 
slate.  They  further  favored  a  free  white  male  suffrage  that 
was  limited  only  by  an  age,  residence  and  slight  tax  qualification.^^ 
Riddick  also  favored  ballot  voting.  Of  these  men  the  most 
prominent  was  Riddick  and  his  long  and  honorable  public 
record  in  St.  Louis  was  a  strong  recommendation  for  him. 

The  third  class  of  anti-restrictionists  embraced  only  one 
candidate,  Rufus  Easton.  His  address  for  election  was  directed 
to  the  independent  voters.  He  favored  leaving  the  question 
open  in  the  hands  of  the  legislature  in  regard  to  the  migration 
of  slaves.  He  opposed  disturbing  the  convention,  state  and 
nation,  by  placing  a  binding  prohibition  in  the  constitution 
which  would  prevent  the  legislature  from  ever  regulating  or 
stopping  the  importation  of  slaves  in  the  State.  He  said: 
"that  subject  should  be  left  free  for  the  state  to  legislate  upon 
from  time  to  time,  unshackled  by  any  constitutional  provision." 
Easton  was  an  anti-restrictionist  only  in  this  sense,  that  he 
opposed  a  slavery  restriction  clause  in  the  constitution.  In 
regard  to  suffrage  he  favored  a  tax  qualification .^^  Such  a 
stand  on  the  slavery  question  was  undoubtedly  unsatisfactory 
to  both  restrictionists  and  anti-restrictionists.  Easton  probably 
resigned  before  the  election  as  his  name  is  not  listed  in  the 
newspaper  election  returns. 

The  restrictionists  had  at  least  eight  and  perhaps  eleven 
candidates  at  the  beginning  of  the  campaign.^^  Six  of  these 
resigned  on  April  19th,  leaving  the  following  five  restriction 
candidates  in  the  field:  John  Bobb,  Caleb  Bowles,  John  B.  C. 


were  the  same  as  McNair's  except  that  he  also  favored  ballot  voting  (ibid.,  April 
19.  1820);  Sullivan's  position  was  the  same  as  McNair's  (ibid.,  April  26,  1820). 
The  individual  announcements  of  the  other  candidates  were  not  found. 

^»  Mo.  Gaz.,  April  26,  1820.  No  declaration  of  principles  by  Ball  could  be 
found. 

^^  Mo.  Gaz.,  April  12,   1820. 

50  It  could  not  be  ascertained  regarding  the  platform  of  Clement  B.  Penrose, 
James  Mackay  and  Alexander  Stuart.  The  latter  resigned  on  April  19th  and 
probably  the  other  two  did  this  before  the  election.  (Mo.  Gaz.,  April  12.  19, 
1820.) 


124  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

Lucas,  Rufus  Pettibone,  and  Robert  Simpson. ^^  This  elimina- 
tion process  was  probably  the  result  of  an  agreement  similar 
to  the  proceedings  of  the  anti-restrictionists. 

The  head  of  the  restrictionist  ticket  was  Judge  John  B.  C. 
Lucas,  a  prominent  and  honored  lawyer  and  public  official  for 
years  in  the  Territory.  His  principles  were  in  general  those  of 
the  other  four  candidates,  except  that  he  took  perhaps  a  more 
conservative  attitude  towards  slavery.  Lucas  stated  his  views 
in  a  lengthy  article  announcing  his  candidacy.^-  He  dis- 
claimed being  a  part  of  any  ticket  or  clique,  and  stated  that 
the  opinions  he  had  would  be  subject  to  modification  in  the 
convention  if  more  information  was  there  given.  He  assured 
the  voters  of  his  stand  on  slavery  in  the  following  language: 
"Were  it  not  for  the  false  statements  that  have  been  set  afloat 
concerning  my  views,  I  should  think  it  unnecessary  to  assure 
the  public  that  nothing  was  or  is  more  foreign  to  my  mind, 
than  to  attempt  to  shake  in  the  convention,  diminish  or  impair 
any  existing  right,  even  the  right  to  hold  slaves  or  their  off- 
spring, to  the  most  remote  generations."  He  stated,  however, 
that  since  the  larger  portion  of  Missourians  were  not  slave- 
owners he  was  opposed  to  the  further  unrestricted  importation 
of  slaves,  and  favored  every  effort  to  prevent  the  increase  or 
extension  of  slavery  which  effort  was  consistent  with  the  vested 
rights  of  the  people  of  Missouri.  He  said  further:  "I  there- 
fore am  of  opinion  that  it  would  be  beneficial  to  the  majority 
of  the  present  population,  and  still  more  so  to  the  future  genera- 
tions, to  prohibit  by  this  constitution  the  importation  or  the 
immigration  of  slaves  from  any  state  or  territory  into  the  state 

of    Missouri    from    and    after   time."     While    not 

critical  regarding  the  importation  of  domestic  slaves  with  their 
household  masters,  Lucas  bitterly  opposed  plantation  slave 
gangs  coming  into  the  State.  He  opposed  the  latter  in  his  love 
for  the  free  white  laborer,  small  land  owner,  and  tenant.  Be- 
sides taking  a  definite  stand  on  slavery  Lucas  favored   ballot 


"  Tho  othor  thrtie  to  resign  were  Abncr  Brck.  .lolm  Urown,  and  WlUiain 
Long.  Those  all  received  votes,  however,  at  the  election.  (Mo.  Ca:.,  April  l'.>. 
20.  May   10.   1K20.) 

'■  Mo.  Gaz.,  April  12.  1K2().  This  articli^  also  appt'ared  in  Frencli  in  this 
paper  on  April  26. 


Popular  Opinion  in  Missouri  in  1820.  125 

voting  as  "the  only  means  to  allay  the  political  paroxysm  that 
seldom  fails  to  happen  at  elections,  and  gives  the  weak,  the 
timid,  and  the  dependent,  a  fair  opportunity  to  give  a  con- 
scientious and  independent  vote,  without  exposing  themselves 
to  the  violence  of  political  bullies,  or  the  vengeance  of  over- 
bearing, wealthy  and  ambitious  men."  He  also  advocated  a 
tax  qualification  for  voters  and  opposed  a  freehold  qualification. 
Notwithstanding  these  mild  restrictionist  views,  Lucas  was 
defeated.  In  a  letter  written  by  him  on  October  27,  1820,  he 
stated  that  he  did  not  succeed  because  he  had  favored  a  limit 
of  five  years  or  some  short  period  from  the  adoption  of  the 
constitution  as  the  limit  for  the  importation  of  slaves.  There- 
upon, he  added,  the  pro-slavery  men  called  him  an  emancipator 
"and  this  is  the  worst  name  that  can  be  given  in  the  State  of 
Missouri."  ^^  Lucas  in  a  letter  written  eighteen  months  later 
stated  that  as  he  was  known  to  have  opposed  the  Spanish 
land  claims,  these  claimants  opposed  him  and  reported  that  he 
opposed  slavery  in  order  to  defeat  him.^^  The  evidence  is  con- 
clusive that  Lucas'  restrictionist  views  defeated  him  at  the  polls, 
regardless  of  the  causes  that  prompted  his  enemies  to  dwell 
upon   these   anti-slavery   views. 

The  second  restrictionist  candidate  in  importance  was 
Rufus  Pettibone.  He  favored  restricting  slavery  in  Missouri, 
"but  still  for  the  sake  of  encouraging  emigration"  opposed 
for  a  number  of  years  prohibiting  "persons  wishing  to  emigrate 
here,  and  settle  among  us,  from  bringing  their  slaves  with  them."^^ 
Pettibone  opposed  a  freehold  and  favored  a  tax  qualification 
only  for  voters  and  advocated  ballot  voting.  A  similar  posi- 
tion was  taken  by  Robert  Simpson.  While  condemning  slavery 
as  a  moral  and  political  evil,  Simpson  opposed  the  emancipa- 
tion of  slaves  and  of  their  increase  since  slaves  were  property. 
He  thought,  however,  that  Missouri  should  prevent  slaves 
being  brought  into  Missouri  as  into  a  market  and  advocated 


""Lucas  to  Robert  :Moore  (J.  B.  C.  Lucas,  Jr.,  comp.  letters  of  Hon.  J.  B. 
C.  Lucas,  from  1815  to  1836.  pp.  28f."     (Citation  taken  from  Trexler,  p.   104.) 

""Lucas  to  William  Lowndes,  Nov.  26,  1821  (ibid.,  p.  158);  Lucas  to  Rufus 
King,  Nov.   16,   1821   (ibid.,  p.   148)."      (Trexler,  p.  104.) 

Mo.  Gaz.,  May  17,   1820. 

»  Afo.  Gaz.,  April  12,   1820.     Letter  dated  April  10,   1820. 


126  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

some  restriction  on  slave  immigration.  Although  a  restriction- 
ist,  Simpson  thought  it  expedient  to  "allow  a  reasonable  time 
for  those  owing  slaves  and  who  may  become  interested  in  our 
soil,  to  emigrate  to  the  state."  "But,"  he  added,  "this 
question  of  slavery  seems  to  have  absorbed  every  other  con- 
sideration." Simpson  regarded  the  suffrage  a  greater  one  and 
was  strongly  opposed  to  a  restricted  or  freehold  qualification.^® 
Caleb  Bowles,  another  restrictionist,  stated  that  if  elected  he 
would  "use  every  endeavour  to  stop  the  further  introduction 
of  slaves  at  as  early  period  as  possible."  He  was  explicit, 
however,  in  his  opposition  "to  interfere  with  the  slaves  already 
in    the    territory."  ^^ 

In  short  the  position  taken  by  the  restrictionist  candidates 
was  perfectly  clear.  While  in  some  instances  opposed  to 
slavery,  all  opposed  tampering  with  or  emancipating  the  slaves 
already  in  the  territory  or  their  increase.  Existing  property 
rights  were  always  to  be  respected.  While  favoring  restriction 
on  the  immigration  of  slaves  into  the  territory,  only  one  went 
so  far  as  to  advocate  such  restriction  "at  as  early  a  period  as 
possible. "^^  The  voters  were  given  to  understand  that  the 
restrictionists  were  not  emancipators  but  only  restrictionists. 

In  order  to  arouse  public  opinion  and  to  organize,  about 
one  hundred  restrictionists  held  a  meeting  in  St.  Louis  on  April 
lOth.^^  Joseph  Charless  was  chairman  and  the  resolutions 
adopted  stated  that  the  meeting  was  "decidedly  opposed  to 
any  interference  with  the  slaves"  then  in  the  territory ,'*'^  that 
the  further  introduction  of  slaves  should  be  stopped  as  early 
as  possible,"  and  that  the  St.  Louis  county  delegates  should 
try  to  effect  this  result  in  the  convention;  that  the  meeting 
opposed  a  freehold  suffrage  qualification  and  viva  voce  voting; 


"Mo.  Gaz.,  April  5,   1<),   1820. 

"  Mo.   Gaz.,   April  5.    1S2(). 

>«  Caleb  Bowlt's.      Mo.  Gaz.,  April  5,    1820, 

'•Mo.  Gaz.,  April    12,   1820. 

«». Joseph  Charles.s  in  uii.swit  to  "A  Farmer"  stattil  publicly  as  follows  on 
thi.s  point:  "I  am  apprised  of  the  sentiments  of  all  tlioso  candidates  who  are 
favorable  to  the  future  restriction  of  slavery,  and  have  conviMsed  with  most  of 
them  on  the  subject,  and  1  can  assure  them  [the  friends  of  \  Farmer'],  that  not 
one  of  them  (the  nistrictionists]  liolds  the  opinion  he  depricates.  They  are  de- 
cidedly oppo.sed  to  any  interference  with  tlie  slaves  in  the  territory."  (Mo. 
Gaz.,    April    12.    1820.) 


Popular  Opinion  in  Missouri  in  1820.  127 

that  candidates  declare  their  positions  on  slavery,  suffrage  and 
voting  principles;  and  that  the  two  St.  Louis  papers  insert  the 
resolutions.  There  were  some  present  at  this  meeting  who 
belonged  to  the  anti  side  and  these  parties  attempted  to  divert 
if  not  disperse  the  gathering.  Their  attempts  failed  but  the 
Enquirer  very  unjustly  branded  all  restrictionists  thereafter 
as  "disorganizers,  or  emissaries  of  King  and  Clinton,  or  the 
busy  spirits  of  anarchy."  ^^ 

From  the  data  at  hand  it  does  not  seem  that  a  hearty 
reception  was  accorded  the  restrictionists.  Even  the  restric- 
tionists themselves  became  less  assertive  and  less  definite  in 
regard  to  restriction  as  the  days  of  election  approached.  Even 
the  real  leader  of  the  restrictionists,  Joseph  Charless,  hedged 
to  the  extent  of  emphasizing  that  Lucas  stood  for  existing 
slavery  rights  and  that  as  far  as  Lucas  entertained  restrictionist 
views  these  "private  sentiments"  would  "yi^^d  to  the  public 
will,  whenever  it  will  be  clearly  and  distinctly  made  known."  ^^ 

The  pro-slavery  party,  on  the  other  hand,  became  more 
confident  and  dogmatic  in  regard  to  their  positiion  on  slavery 
as  the  final  test  drew  near.  They  stood  firm  on  the  single  issue 
of  slavery-restriction  or  unlimited  immigration  of  slaves,  and 
they  W'Cnt  before  the  voters  with  seemingly  little  fear  of  defeat. 
They  were  glad  to  drop  all  other  issues  such  as  suffrage  and 
voting,  and  stumped  the  county  only  against  slavery  restriction. 
Accusations  and  counter-accusations  were  in  evidence  but  the 
pro-slavery  men  had  the  advantage.^^  The  latter  held  the 
trump  card,  knew  it,  and  would  play  no  other.  Side  issues — 
as  important  intrinsically  as  slavery — were  brushed  aside  by 
them  and  the  flag  of  unlimited,  unrestricted  slavery  was  held 
up  before  the  voters.     They  knew  the  power  they  wielded  and 


<'  April  19,  1820,  by  "A  Member  of  the  meeting." 

«  Afo.  Gaz.,  April  19,  1820.  editorial. 

"  The  Enquirer  accused  the  Methodist  preachers  of  preaching  and  laboring 
for  slavery  restriction.  Some  were  even  accused  by  the  pro-slavery  men  of  preach- 
ing rebellion  to  the  slaves.  The  latter  charge  was  never  substantiated,  and  the 
former  was  denied  by  the  Rev.  M.  Peck.  {Mo.  Gaz.,  ^Nlay  10,  1820,  "Fair  Play; 
ibid..  May  24,  1820,  "A.  McAllister.")  The  Enquirer  spoke  of  the  restrictionists 
as  the  "Yankees,"  a  term  of  more  wide-spread  reproach  in  ^Missouri  in  1820  than 
in  the  sixties.  {Mo.  Gaz.,  May  3,  1820.)  The  pro-slavery  candidates  in  St.  Louis 
county  were  branded  as  debauched,  depraved  bachelors  who  formed  a  lawyer 
junto.      {Mo.  Gaz.,  April,  May,  1820.) 


128  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

did  nothing  that  would  have  impaired  that  power.  They 
gathered  to  themselves  popular  opinion  because  they  perceived 
and  interpreted  one  thing  that  the  people  wanted.  The  people 
also  wanted  an  unrestricted  suffrage,  except  with  age  and  resi- 
dence qualifications,  and  an  unrestricted  system  of  voting,  the 
ballot  system,  but  they  either  desired  or  were  led  to  desire  an 
unrestricted  slavery  more  than  either  or  both  of  these."^  The 
issue  of  the  day  had  become  solely  a  restricted  or  an  unre- 
stricted slavery  system  for  Missouri. 

The  election  was  held  on  the  first  Monday  and  the  two 
days  following  in  May,  which  fell  on  the  first,  second  and  third 
of  that  month.  Contrary  to  popular  opinion  and  contrary 
even  to  former  recorded  Missouri  history,  this  election  was  not 
held  viva  voce.     The  voting  was  by  ballot."*^ 

The  St.  Louis  county  polls  were  the  center  of  interest  of 
the  Territory.  There  the  restrictionists  were  strongest.  There 
the  anti-slavery  men  stood  a  better  chance  of  electing  a  delegate 
than  in  any  other  county.  On  May  3rd,  the  last  day  of  the 
election,  the  Missouri  Gazette  addressed  the  voters  in  an  im- 
passioned editorial,  that  even  today  has  a  modern,  twentieth 
century   ring.     It  said   in   part: 

"Fellow  Citizens,  Today  is  the  last  opportunity  that  is  left  you  to  give  your 
voice  in  forming  a  State  Constitution.  You  are  now  called  upon  for  the  last 
time  to  say  whether  aristocracy  and  tyranny  shall  prevail — whether  a  few  nabobs 

selected  by  a  secret  caucus,  shall  be  forced  upon  you .or  whether  you 

will  exercise  the  proper  persons  to  frame  your  mode  of  government.  You  are 
now  called  upon  for  the  last  time  to  declare  whether  yourselves,  and  your  cliildren, 

to  the  latest  generation,  will  be  cursed  with  slavery ;  or  whether  you 

will  elect  men  who  will  take  measures  gradually  to  extinguish  the  evil,  without 

interfering  with  the  existing  rights  of  property Your  destiny  is  fixed  by 

the  result  of  this  day's  vote." 


*' Mo.  Gaz.,  April  12,  19.  26,  1820.  "Anthony  Benezef."  ibid..  April  19,  182"). 
"A  Mechanic;"  ibid..  April  20,  1820,  "An  Elector." 

<»  Billon,  Annals,  1804-1821,  p.  100,  states  that  the  election  was  held  rica 
voce. 

All  territorial  elections  were  held  by  ballot.  This  eontiiuied  tlown  to  Dec. 
9.  1822,  when  the  viva  voce  systcun  was  adopted  but  ballot  voting  was  even  by  that 
act  still  lawful.  Hallot  voting  came  back  thirteen  years  later  in  is:i.'i.  In  those 
days  there  was  little  material  dilference  between  the  two  systems:  neither  was 
secret,  the  judge  or  clerk  of  the  election  reading  aloud  the  ticket  cast  or  announcing 
the  oral  vote  cast.  (3tis,  Election  Laws  of  Mo.,  pp.  llf;  Mo.  Tvr.  Laws,  I.  185. 
Act  of  Juno  18.  1808;  Ibid.,  pp.  297f.,  act  of  Jan.  4,  1814;  ibid.,  pp.  Til-Jf..  act  of 
Jan.  29,   1HI7;  ibid.,  (Laws  of  the  State)  p.  901.  act  of  Dec.  9,   1822. 


Popular  Opinion  in  Missouri  in  1820.  129 

The  result  of  the  election  in  St.  Louis  county  was,  however, 
most  gratifying  to  the  pro-slavery  party.  All  eight  delegates 
elected  were  anti-restrictionists  and  all  but  one  had  been  slated 
by  the  caucus.  The  total  number  of  votes  cast  for  all  the 
restrictionist  candidates  was  2,026,  while  the  total  for  the 
anti-restrictionists  was  7,265 — a  ratio  of  nearly  four  to  one 
for  the  pro-slavery  party.  The  highest  vote  cast  for  a  restric- 
tionist was  400,  which  was  given  to  J.  B.  C.  Lucas;  the  lowest 
was  73,  to  William  Long:  the  highest  vote  cast  for  an  anti- 
restrictionist  was  892,  which  was  given  to  David  Barton;  the 
lowest  was  144,  to  Ridson  H.  Price.  The  pro-slavery  delegate 
who  received  the  smallest  number  of  votes  was  Thos.  F.  Riddick. 
His  vote  was,  however,  562,  or  162  votes  more  than  Lucas  re- 
ceived .^^  By  no  possibility  could  the  restrictionists  have  elected 
a  delegate.  They  were  numerically  in  the  minority.  There 
were  not  more  than  four  hundred  restrictionist  voters  in  the 
entire  county  and  at  least  two  hundred  and  sixty  of  these  were 
located  in  the  St.  Louis  township.  Although  only  fifty-seven 
per  cent  of  the  total  vote  was  cast  in  St.  Louis  township,  the 
restrictionists  obtained  sixty-eight  per  cent  of  their  total  there. 
The  stronghold  of  the  restrictionists  was  the  town,  although 
even  there  the  pro-slavery  party  had  at  least  four  hundred  and 
seventy-seven  voters  as  against  the  two  hundred  and  sixty 
restrictionists.  Moreover,  nine  of  the  pro-slavery  candidates 
received  more  votes  in  St.  Louis  township  than  any  restric- 
tionist candidate.  In  each  of  the  other  two  townships  in  the 
county  the  pro-slavery  party  was  proportionately  stronger 
than  even  in  St.  Louis.^^  In  St.  Louis  township  the  pro-slavery 
candidates  received  three  and  one-half  times  as  many  votes  as 
the  restrictionists,  in  the  other  two  townships  the  former  re- 
ceived four  times  as  many.     However,  in  St.  Louis  township 


<6  lA/o.  Gaz.,  May  10,  1820.  The  pro-slavery  votes  were  cast  as  follows: 
Barton,  892;  Bates,  881;  Chouteau,  586;  McNair,  881;  Pratte,  874;  Rector,  889; 
Riddick.  562;  Sullivan,  861;  Ball,  30.3;  Hunt,  392;  Price,  144.  The  first  eight 
were  elected,  Riddick  the  independent  pro-slavery  candidate  won  over  Hunt 
the  slated  pro-slavery  man.  The  restrictionist  votes  were  cast  as  follows:  Lucas, 
400;  Simpson,  390;  Pettibone,  329;  Bowles,  342;  Bobb,  296;  Beck,  111;  Brown, 
85;  Long,  73.     The  last  three  had  declined  before  the  election. 

*'  Votes  given  by  townships  for  each  candidate  found  in  Mo.  Gaz.,  May  10, 
1820. 

M  S— 9 


130  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

the  pro-slavery  voters  outnumbered  the  restrictionist  voters, 
only  about  two  to  one;  in  the  two  other  townships,  three  to  one. 

The  organization  of  both  parties  was  strongest  in  St.  Louis 
township.  Here  the  pro-slavery  caucus  slate  of  eight,  went 
through  with  only  a  defection  of  one  hundred  votes  in  the  case 
of  Chouteau  and  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  votes  in  the  case 
of  Hunt.  Here  the  restrictionist  ticket  of  five  candidates  was 
supported  with  slight  scratching.  In  the  other  two  townships, 
however,  more  independent  voting  obtained.  Hunt,  a  slated 
pro-slavery  candidate,  polled  only  74  votes  in  these,  while 
Riddick,  the  independent  pro-slavery  candidate,  polled  365 
votes,  and  Ball,  another  independent  pro-slavery  candidate, 
received  179  votes.  In  one  outside  township,  Chouteau  was 
so  unpopular  that  he  polled  only  7  votes,  while  his  ticket  se- 
cured an  average  of  about  150  votes.  To  this  independent 
voting  Riddick  owed  his  election. 

The  result  of  the  election  throughout  the  Territory  was 
even  more  decidedly  pro-slavery  than  in  St.  Louis  county. 
The  Missouri  Intelligencer  on  June  10th,  said  editorially:  "It 
is  now  certain  that  the  whole  Missouri  delegation  to  the  Con- 
vention are  in  favor  of  Missouri  being  a  slave  state  uncon- 
ditionally." The  St.  Louis  Enquirer  on  May  10th,  said  edi- 
torially: "We  undertake  to  say  that  there  is  not  a  single  con- 
fessed restrictionist  elected  throughout  the  Territory,  nor  a 
disguised  one  that  will  venture  to  confess  himself  in  the  con- 
vention." The  Jackson  Herald  on  May  27th  gave  a  list  of  the 
delegates  elected  in  most  of  the  counties  and  commented:  "All 
in  favor  of  the  continuance  of  slavery  in  Missouri."  ^^  Even 
the  independent  editor  of  the  Missouri  Gazette  wrote  on  May 
10th  the  following  bitter  confession:  "The  election  for  mem- 
bers of  the  convention  is  past,  and  has  resulted  in  the  choice 
of  candidates,  whose  sentiments  on  several  points  we  honestly 

avow,  we  did  not  approve If  a  majority  of  the  people 

are  willing  and  desirous  that  slavery  shall  exist  eternally  in 
Missouri;  that  the  right  of  suffrage  shall  be  confined  to  those 


«»The  Herald  on  May  13th  also  copied  In  the  Enquirer's  comment  of  May 
10th. 


Popular  Opinion  in  Missouri  in  1820.  131 

who  own  a  freehold,  or  a  quantity  of  negroes,  that  all  voting 
shall  be  viva  voce,  we  are  contented."'*^ 

The  results  of  the  election  in  the  other  counties  showed 
an  even  stronger  pro-slavery  sentiment  than  existed  in  St. 
Louis  county.  No  record  is  found  of  there  having  been  any 
restrictionist  candidates  before  the  people  except  in  St.  Louis, 
Jefferson,  Washington,  Lincoln  and  Cape  Girardeau  counties. 
In  St.  Louis  county  there  were  not  over  four  hundred  restric- 
tionists;  in  Jefferson  county,  probably  not  a  hundred ;  in  Washing- 
ton, about  seventy;  in  Lincoln  not  over  a  hundred;  and  in  Cape 
Girardeau,  about  one  hundred  and  fifty.  In  the  other  counties 
there  were  either  no  restrictionists  or  they  were  negligible, 
since  no  candidate  was  put  forth.  Thus  allowing  the  liberal 
number  of  eight  hundred  and  twenty-five  restrictionists  in  the 
five  foregoing  counties,  it  is  quite  probable  that  there  were  not 
over  a  thousand  restrictionist  voters  in  the  Territory.  As  the 
ratio  of  votes  cast  to  the  w^hite  population  ranged  between  one 
to  five  to  one  to  eight,  and  as  the  total  white  population  of  the 
territory  was  approximately  56,000,  the  number  of  voters 
voting  was  between  seven  and  eleven  thousand.  In  short  the 
restrictionists  were  not  only  in  the  minority  but  were  hope- 
lessly in  that  class,  being  outnumbered  at  least  seven  to  one 
and  perhaps  nine  or  ten  to  one.^° 


«'  See  also  Mo.  Gaz.,  May  17,  31,  1820. 

'»  Lucas,  who  received  the  largest  number  of  votes  given  a  restrictionist, 
polled  only  400  votes.  In  Jeflferson  county  265  votes  were  cast.  This  represented 
265  voters,  since  Jefferson  county  elected  only  one  delegate.  There  were  three 
candidates  in  the  field,  Hammond,  Henry — both  pro-slavery  men — and  Vausant, 
restrictionist.  Hammond  and  Henry  probably  received  at  least  165  votes. 
Hammond  was  elected.  (Scharf,  Hist.  St.  Louis,  I,  563,  gives  return  of  votes 
for  ten  counties.  Supposed  to  have  been  copied  from  the  returns  made  to  the 
Executive  office.)  In  Washington  county  all  three  pro-slavery  candidates  were 
elected.  All  but  150  votes  were  cast  at  Mine  a  Burton.  At  this  place.  1,147 
were  pro-slavery  votes  and  only  61  were  restrictionist  votes.  (St.  Louis  Enq., 
May  10,  1820.)  In  Lincoln  county,  one  delegate  to  elect,  248  votes  were  cast. 
(Scharf,  op.  cit.)  Four  candidates  were  in  the  field — two  restrictionists  and  two 
pro-slavery  men.  A  pro-slavery  candidate,  IVIalcolm  Henry,  was  elected.  The 
pro-slavery  sentiment  in  Lincoln  county  was  probably  even  stronger  than  in 
Jefferson  county,  since  it  had  a  larger  slave  population  but  a  smaller  white  popula- 
tion. In  Cape  Girardeau  county  there  were  837  votes  cast.  (Scharf,  op.  cit.) 
The  single  restrictionist  candidate,  Scripps,  received  only  147  votes.  (Jackson 
Herald,  May  6,   13,   1820.) 

The  ratio  of  votes  cast  to  the  total  white  population  varied  in  different 
counties.     In  Washington  county  it  was  one  to  five,  the  number  of  votes  being 


132  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

Several  writers  on  this  subject  of  the  election  of  delegates 
have  stated  that  anti-Congress  public  opinion  in  Missouri 
had  so  influenced  the  people  that  the  voters  elected  only  strong 
pro-slavery  delegates.  In  short  that  opposition  to  slavery 
restriction  by  Congressmen  had  reacted  and  become  opposition 
to  slavery  restriction  by  Missourians;  that  anti-slavery  men 
were  so  blinded  in  their  hatred  of  anti-slavery  legislation  by 
Congress  that  they  voted  to  perpetuate  slavery  among  them- 
selves; and  that  pro-slavery  delegates  were  elected  because  of 
resentment  against  attempted  anti-slavery  legislation  by  Con- 
gress and  not  because  of  a  pro-slavery  sentiment. ^^  Such 
statements  and  conclusions  have  a  plausibility  that  carries 
with  it  an  almost  convincing  proof.  All  agree  that  Missourians 
were  deeply  stirred  in  anger  against  attempted  Congressional 
slavery  legislation  in  1819.  There  is  no  room  to  doubt  that 
there  were  few  in  Missouri  in  that  year  who  dared  openly  to 
approve  the  efforts  made  by  the  majority  of  the  National  House 
of  Representatives  to  restrict  slavery  here.  The  evidence  is 
conclusive  on  this  point.  The  next  step  is  that  so  bitter  was 
the  resentment  of  Missourians  in  1819  against  anti-slavery 
legislation  by  Congress  that  even  anti-slavery  men  voted  for 
pro-slavery  delegates  in  1820  to  frame  pro-slavery  laws  in  a 
Missouri  constitutional  convention.  No  evidence  is  given 
to  support  this,  it  is  merely  a  statement  based  on  conviction. 
On  the  other  hand  would  it  not  be  just  as  plausible  to  say  that 
a  strong  resentment  against  anti-slavery  legislation  of  Congress 
existed  in  Missouri  in  1819  not  only  l)ecause  Missourians  ob- 
jected to  any  kind  of  Congressional  interference  but  because 
they  were  strongly  pro-slavery  in  sentiment? 

The  facts,  however,  arc  these  in  regard  to  the  election  of 
pro-slavery  delegates  in  1820.  Missourians  elected  pro-slavery 
delegates  by  overwhelming  majorities  not   because   they  were 


4.53  and  the  wliilo  populalion,  2,344.  In  Ilowurd  coiintj  (he  ratio  was  about 
one  to  seven,  the  number  of  votes  being  1,735,  tlie  white  population  11,319.  In 
Cooper  county  the  ratio  was  nearly  one  to  eight,  the  nuinl)er  of  votes  being  797. 
the  white  population  (),3()7.  (Scharf,  op.  cit.;  U.  S.  Census,  1830,  Schedule  p. 
23.) 

For  list  of  delegates  elected  see  Appendi.x  IV. 

"  Carr,  Afo..  ]}]).  l.'>()f;  1 1  odder.  Side  Lights  on  ATo.  Camp.,  In  Aw.  Hist. 
Ass'n.  R.,  1909.  p.   IFiH. 


Popular  Opinion  in  Missouri  in  1820.  133 

better  men  or  anti-Congress  men,  but  because  they  were  anti- 
restrictionists.  The  voters  and  the  candidates  did  not  write 
anti-Congress  articles  for  the  April  and  May  Missouri  news- 
papers of  1820,  but  wrote  addresses  to  the  people  on  pro-slavery 
and  anti-slavery  premises,  on  anti-restriction  and  restriction 
bases,  on  suffrage  and  on  voting.  These  were  the  issues  of  the 
day,  and  the  big  issue  over  all  was  slavery.  No  attempt  was 
made  even  by  the  pro-slavery  candidates  to  convert  people  by 
anti-Congress  arguments,  and  if  such  an  attempt  had  been 
made  its  superficial  character  w^ould  probably  have  incensed 
rather  than  enthused  Missourians.  Such  argument  would 
have  been  a  poor  battle  cry  in  1820  in  Missouri,  and  there  was 
no  hesitancy  in  those  days  to  seize  campaign  material  wherever 
it  could  be  found.  Charless  tried  to  defeat  the  pro-slavery 
lawyers  by  calling  them  bachelors  and  immoral  men,  and  un- 
democratic even  to  the  exercise  of  the  suffrage.  Benton  tried 
to  cast  coals  on  the  heads  of  the  restrictionists  by  accusing  them 
of  inciting  humble  ministers  of  the  gospel  to  preach  the  doctrine 
of  emancipation  in  the  negroe's  hut:  but  neither  dug  up  the  dead 
past  of  Congress  legislation.^-  Both  sides  fought  openly  and 
squarely  on  the  slavery  platform,  and  to  the  voters  slavery 
was  the  big  question  to  be  forever  settled. 

The  voters'  interest  in  slavery  was  purely  a  matter  of  self- 
interest.  The  number  of  slaves  in  Missouri  in  1820  equalled 
its  number  of  voters.  The  14,667  free  white  males  over  eight- 
een years  toiled  with  or  were  toiled  for  by  10,222  human  chattels. 
These  ten  thousand  represented  several  million  dollars  that  were 
doubly  productive.  No  county  had  less  than  two  hundred  of 
these,  and  one  county  had  twenty-one  hundred.  Then,  there 
was  the  land-speculator,  big  and  small.  To  get  his  profits  or 
unearned  increment,  settlements  were  necessary.  The  quicker 
and  the  larger  was  immigration  to  the  new  State,  the  sooner 
he  became  wealthy.  But  immigration  had  set  in  from  the  south, 
the  land  of  slavery.  To  restrict  the  slave  immigration  would 
be  to  limit  white  immigration.     To  argue  that  the  stopping 


'=  Mo.  Gaz.,  April  19,  1820;  St.  Louis  Enq.,  June  14,  1820,  quotation  from 
Niles'  Register,  May  13,  1820,  which  had  been  taken  for  an  article  in  the  Mo. 
Gaz. 


134  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

of  slave  immigration  from  the  south  meant  the  beginning  of 
white  immigration  from  the  north,  was  offering  the  speculator 
a  chance  in  exchange  for  a  certainty.  Nor  was  the  land  spec- 
ulator, big  farmer  and  small,  alone  a  convert  to  these  ideas. 
The  business  man,  the  surveyor,  the  politician,  believed  that 
his  business  was  bound  up  with  more  southern  settlers  and 
more  slaves.  Reasons  of  justice  and  humanity  were  on  the 
side  of  the  restrictionists,  and  perhaps  the  farsighted  logic  of 
the  future  was  theirs,  but  the  reasons  of  dollars  and  self-interest 
and  the  keen  cut  logic  of  the  present  fought  on  the  side  of  the 
pro-slavery  party.  In  such  a  struggle  the  justice  and  wisdom 
possessed  by  a  few  hundred  souls  were  no  strong  competitors 
to  the  self-interest  and  prejudice  of  the  thousands  of  voters. 


W 


CHAPTER  V. 
FATHERS  OF  THE  STATE. 

PERSONNEL  OF  THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1820. 

It  has  always  seemed  strange  to  us  that  while  much  of  the 
pioneer  and  military  history  of  Missouri  is  familiarly  known 
to  all  the  United  States,  the  lives  of  those  men  that  framed 
and  set  in  working  the  State's  first  constitution  have  excited 
so  little  interest  even  at  home.  Every  schoolboy  west  of  the 
Mississippi  River  and  many  east  of  it  know  something  of  that 
Kentucky  and  Missouri  pioneer  whose  name  has  been  popularly 
associated  with  the  Boone's  Lick  Road,  or  of  that  famous  Mis- 
sourian  who  has  been  so  appropriately  called  the  "Xenophon 
of  the  Mexican  War."  Yet  the  work  of  either  Daniel  Boone 
or  Alexander  W.  Doniphan  is  equalled  in  Missouri  history  by 
that  performed  by  David  Barton,  Edward  Bates,  Nathan 
Boone,  Alexander  Buckner,  John  D.  Cook,  Henry  Dodge, 
Duff  Green,  Samuel  S.  Hammond,  John  Rice  Jones,  Alexander 
McNair,  John  Scott  and  many  others  of  the  forty-one  dele- 
gates of  Missouri's  first  constitutional  convention.  While 
the  fame  of  Boone  and  Doniphan  is  fittingly  preserved  in 
Missouri  county  and  town  named  in  their  honor,  only  three  of  the 
forty-one  delegates  are  today  so  remembered.^  Indeed  the 
lives  of  many  of  these  constitution  framers  are  today  so  hidden, 
not  only  from  the  general  public  but  even  from  the  historian, 


1  Barton,  Ray,  and  Scott  counties,  ISIissouri.  Lillard  county,  ISIissouri,  was 
named  after  Colonel  William  Lillard,  a  delegate,  but  the  name  was  later  changed 
to  Lafayette  county.  Boone  county,  Iowa,  was  named  in  honor  of  Major  Nathan 
Boone,  a  delegate,  who  was  one  of  the  first  white  men  to  set  foot  in  that  district. 
Bates  county,  Missouri,  was  named  in  honor  of  Governor  Frederick  Bates,  who 
was  the  first  Secretary  of  Missouri  Territory  and  later  the  second  Governor  of 
the  State  of  Missouri.  Governor  Bates  was  a  brother  of  Edward  Bates.  Clark 
county,  Missouri,  was  named  in  honor  of  William  Clark,  territorial  governor  of 
Missouri,  and  not  in  honor  of  Robert  P.  Clark,  a  delegate.  Henry  county, 
Missouri,  was  named  after  Patrick  Henry,  and  not  in  honor  of  Colonel  Malcolm 
Henry,  a  delegate.  Perry  coimty,  Missouri,  after  Commodore  Perry,  and  not 
in  honor  of  Samuel  Perry,  a  delegate.  Sullivan  county,  ISIissouri,  after  Sullivan 
county,  Tennessee,  and  not  in  honor  of  Major  John  C.  Sullivan,  a  delegate. 

(135) 


136  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood, 

that  only  after  years  of  labor  is  it  possible  to  compile  sketches 
of  their  lives.-  This  is  the  more  singular  when  we  consider 
that  with  few  exceptions  the  convention  was  composed  of 
the  foremost  men  of  Missouri  of  that  day.^  It  included  in  its 
membership  so  many  forceful  leaders  whose  remarkable  careers 
and  abilities  arouse  our  admiration  that  it  seems  unfortunate 
to  be  limited  to  sketches  of  only  the  most  noted  of  them.  We 
believe,  however,  that  the  most  eminent  delegates  were  David 
Barton,  John  Rice  Jones,  Duff  Green,  Edward  Bates,  and 
Henry  Dodge.  The  first  four  were  lawyers;  the  last  was  en- 
gaged in  lead  mining  and  farming.  Although  in  the  conven- 
tion the  influence  of  John  D.  Cook,  Jonathan  Smith  Findlay, 
Alexander  McNair,  John  Scott,  or  of  several  other  delegates 
may  have  been  greater  than  that  of  Henry  Dodge,  and  perhaps 
equal  to  that  of  Duff  Green,  we  have  selected  these  two  on  ac- 
count of  their  preeminently  superior  ability  and  their  more 
remarkable  and  distinguished  careers. 

Excepting  Jones  all  five  were  entering  the  prime  of  life. 
Their  average  age  was  not  quite  thirty-eight  years:  the  young- 
est. Bates,  who  next  to  Baber  was  the  most  youthful  member 
of  the  convention,  had  not  yet  completed  his  twenty-seventh 
year;  the  oldest,  Jones,  who  was  one  of  the  four  delegates  that 
had  passed  the  three  score  mark,  was  sixty-one  years  old. 
Barton  and  Dodge  were  entering  middle  age,  being  respectively 
thirty-seven  and  thirty-eight  years  old,  and  Green,  one  of  the 
three  youngest  members  under  thirty,  had  barely  attained  the 
age  of  twenty-nine.  Of  these  five  the  first  to  pass  away  was 
Jones,  who  with  two  other  delegates  did  not  live  to  see  the 
constitution  of  1820  in  operation  four  years;  Barton  died  within 


»  The  following  generalizations  on  the  dolegalos  will  not  be  siii)i)ortocl  with 
authorities,  owing  to  the  character  of  the  summaries. 

Houck,  op.  cit..  III.  253,  speaking  of  tlie  delegates  says:  "At  any  rate,  it 
has  been  a  matt(T  of  no  small  dilTiculty  to  secure  reliable  facts  as  to  some  of  these 
worthies  of  other  days,  and  in  a  f(^w  instances  no  details  whatever  could  be  found, 
so  comph^tely  have  their  lives  and  very  existence  faded  fr(»in  (he  recollection  of 
the  present  generation." 

•The  most  notcnl  exception  was  Thomas  H.  Benton.  WluMlier  Benton 
feared  defeat  at  the  hands  of  his  many  enemies,  if  he  became  a  candidatt>  f«)r  the 
convention,  or  reasoncul  that  lie  could  exert  more  influence  both  on  the  constitu- 
tion and  his  future  political  fortunes,  if  he  remained  outside  tliat  body,  is  a  matter 
of  conjecture. 


Fathers  of  the  State.  137 

seventeen  years;  while  Dodge,  Bates,  and  Green,  three  of  the 
last  four  survivors  of  the  convention,  lived  to  see  another 
organic  law  govern  Missouri,  a  civil  war  threatening  the  ruin 
of  the  Nation,  and  finally  the  restoration  of  peace. 

Nothing  illustrates  more  clearly  the  cosmopolitan  char- 
acter of  the  convention  than  the  lives  of  its  leaders.  No  two 
were  natives  of  the  same  state  or  territory,  and  only  Dodge 
and  Green  were  reared  in  the  same  state:  Bates  was  born  and 
reared  in  Virginia;  Barton  in  what  is  now  the  State  of  Tennessee; 
Green  in  Kentucky;  Jones  in  Wales  and  England;  and  Dodge 
in  what  is  now  the  States  of  Indiana,  Kentucky  and  Missouri. 
The  Bates  family  was  one  of  the  early  English  families  of  Vir- 
ginia; the  Bartons  were  of  Scotch  descent  and  date  back  to  1546, 
when  they  were  great  merchant  captains  and  as  such  were 
called  "Kings  of  the  Sea;"  the  Dodge  family  was  of  pure  Eng- 
lish descent  and  had  early  settled  in  New  England,  where  it 
grew  for  over  a  century  and  a  half  before  trying  its  fortunes  in 
the  west;  the  Green  family  of  Kentucky  was  of  Welsh  descent, 
and  its  first  American  sire  was  one  of  the  original  owners  of  the 
Shenandoah  Valley;  the  Jones  family  is  so  ancient  in  the  records 
of  Wales  that  its  history  is  finally  lost  in  the  maze  of  legends  of 
that  country.  In  this  connection  we  cannot  refrain  from 
noticing  the  remarkable  good  fortune  that  has  followed  the 
descendants  of  four  of  these  men.  Excepting  David  Barton, 
all  married  and  left  large  families;  and  some  of  the  members  of 
each  have  achieved  distinction  in  public  life.  It  is  no  exaggera- 
tion to  state  that  these  four  men  have  lineal  descendants  scat- 
tered from  ocean  to  ocean  and  from  the  Gulf  to  Canada. 

The  most  popular  man  not  only  in  the  convention  but  in 
Missouri  in  1820  was  David  Barton.  A  native  of  Tennessee 
both  by  birth  and  rearing  and  a  member  of  one  of  the  oldest 
families  in  America,  he  has  always  been  written  of  by  historians 
and  biographers  in  the  highest  terms.  He  was  undoubtedly 
the  most  interesting  and  forceful  speaker  among  the  delegates, 
and  it  is  a  question  whether  his  superior  or  even  equal  as  an 
orator  could  have  been  found  west  of  the  Mississippi  River  at 
that  time,  not  even  excepting  Benton.  We  are  certain  that 
this  Valley  never  sent  to   Congress  a  more  vivacious,  witty, 


138  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

sarcastic,  and  fascinating  speaker.  Not  only  was  Barton  a 
brilliant  speaker  but  he  was  also  a  man  of  sterling  integrity.'* 
Until  he  cast  his  vote  for  Adams  in  1825,  Barton  was  regarded 
both  at  home  and  throughout  the  Nation  as  one  of  its  greatest 
leaders.  His  downfall  in  1830  was  due  to  this  act  of  his  in 
1825,  and  to  his  refusal  to  align  himself  with  the  Jacksonian- 
Benton  Democrats.^  Barton  was  one  statesman  Missouri 
produced  who  feared  neither  Benton  nor  Jackson,  and  who 
alone  could  meet  "Old  Bullion"  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  with 
greater  hope  of  victory  than  fear  of  defeat.  Few  public  men 
in  Missouri  history  have  been  so  idolized,  so  unanimously  raised 
to  the  highest  public  position  in  the  gift  of  the  commonwealth, 
and  so  soon  retired  to  private  life.  His  life  supplies  all  the 
material  necessary  for  a  tragedy.  After  much  scheming  and 
working  he  secured  the  election  of  his  friend,  Benton,  to  the 
United  States  Senate,  and  this  was  accomplished  only  after 
using  his  own  great  popularity  to  overcome  the  most  stubborn 
opposition  due  to  Benton's  unpopularity.  In  four  years  his 
friend  had  become  his  enemy,  and  in  ten  years  was  the  chief 
instrument  in  causing  his  political  death.  Seven  years  later 
in  a  cabin  near  Boonville  the  ravings  of  a  lunatic  were  silenced, 
and  Missouri's  first  United  States  Senator  and  one  of  her  great- 
est statesmen  and  orators  had  passed  away. 

While  Barton  was  the  most  popular  delegate  and  the  most 
brilliant  orator  in  the  convention,  he  was  neither  so  well  edu- 
cated nor  so  deeply  versed  in  law  as  were  several  of  his  col- 
leagues. In  these  qualities  ranking  over  all  the  members  was 
John  Rice  Jones,  one  of  Missouri's  first  three  Supreme  Court 
Judges.  This  scholarly  lawyer  was  an  American  by  adoption, 
having  been  born  in  Wales  of  an  old  Welsh  line.     He  received 


*  As  an  example  of  this  last  quality  might  be  noted  Barton's  refusal  to  accept 
the  very  lib(;ral  courtesy — mileage  allowed  lTnit<Hl  States  Senators  wlu'n  tliey 
are  conv<!ned  in  executive  scission  on  tlie  expiration  of  a  Congress. 

'  Grave  indictments  were  also  made  against  ihv  morals  of  Harton  but  we  doubt 
if  this  was  very  intluential  in  bringing  at)out  his  defeat.  Kven  iti  \S'M)  he  was 
more  popular  than  any  otiier  man  in  Missouri,  excepting  Hentt)n.  And  the 
Benton  forces  were  unaiile  in  that  year  to  muster  as  many  votes  in  the  legislature 
as  Barton  did.  The  Missouri  legislature  in  isao  really  elected  a  man  who  was 
the  choice  of  the  Barton  forces.  Alexander  Buckner  was  a  .lackson  man  who 
believed  in  Barton's  policitts.  He  was  a  compromise  Senator  and  was  far  more 
acceptable  to  th(t   Itartoti   iiieti  than   to  the   Itetilouiles. 


Fathers  of  the  State,  139 

an  excellent  education  in  both  law  and  medicine  at  Oxford 
University,  and  later  practiced  law  in  London.  Coming  to 
America  in  1784  he  formed  the  acquaintance  of  such  eminent 
men  as  Benjamin  Franklin,  and  Dr.  Benjamin  Rush  in  Phila- 
delphia. Attaching  himself  to  General  George  Rogers  Clark's 
force  in  1786,  Jones  soon  attracted  attention  in  the  Old  North- 
west Territory  both  as  a  lawyer  and  as  a  politician.  He  was 
the  first  English  speaking  lawyer  in  Indiana  Territory,  its  first 
Attorney  General  for  four  years,  a  member  of  its  legislative 
council  for  nearly  a  like  period,  and  with  John  Johnson  made 
the  first  revision  of  its  laws.  Having  moved  from  Vincennes 
to  the  Illinois  country  first  in  1789  and  later  in  1809,  he  holds 
the  honor  of  being  the  first  practicing  lawyer  resident  in  the 
latter  territory.  His  knowledge  of  law  is  said  to  have  been 
remarkable,  being  deeply  versed  not  only  in  the  English  system 
of  jurisprudence  but  equally  so  in  that  of  the  Continent.  He 
was,  we  believe,  not  only  the  most  learned  member  of  the  con- 
vention but  between  1790  and  1810  was  also  the  greatest  lawyer 
west  of  Ohio  if  not  west  of  the  Alleghany  Mountains.  His 
practice  at  one  time  included  the  entire  northwest  comprising 
the  State  of  Ohio,  the  Territories  of  Indiana  and  Illinois,  upper 
Louisiana — later  the  Territory  of  Missouri,  and  the  Territory 
and  State  of  Kentucky.  We  know  of  no  other  lawyer  in  the 
early  history  of  the  United  States  w^ho  enjoyed  so  extensive  a 
practice  over  such  a  large  domain  of  territory  and  under  so  many 
systems  of  jurisdiction.  His  success  as  a  lawyer  was  equalled 
by  his  accomplishments  as  a  scholar  and  a  linguist,  and  was 
greatly  aided  by  his  ability  as  a  speaker.  He  was  a  skillful 
reasoner,  and  a  perfect  master  of  satire  and  invective.  His 
contemporaries  tell  us  he  was  a  brilliant  advocate;  and  his 
great  knowledge  of  books  and  men  combined  with  a  wide  ex- 
perience, a  restless  and  fearless  disposition,  and  passions  which 
when  aroused  swept  all  before  them,  made  him  a  most  effective 
and  formidable  opponent  in  either  court  or  legislature.  He  was 
deeply  versed  both  in  mathematics  and  the  classics,  and  was 
accomplished  in  the  Greek,  Latin,  French,  Spanish,  Welsh,  and 
English  languages.  United  with  these  remarkable  qualities  of 
mind,  John  Rice  Jones  possessed  the  industry  and  skill  of  a 


140  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

man  of  finance.  Together  with  Moses  Austin  he  opened  the 
first  cupola  or  reverberatory  furnace  in  the  United  States,  and 
his  progressive  ideas  on  lead  mining  were  favorably  commented 
on  by  the  United  States  government  officials.  He  was  one  of 
the  wealthiest  men  in  the  Great  West,  being  part  owner  of  the 
richest  and  oldest  lead  mine  in  the  United  States  at  that  time, 
and  one  of  the  largest  land  owners  in  the  country.  It  is  inter- 
esting to  note  that  the  direct  descendants  of  this  remarkable 
man  have  become  prominently  connected  with  the  history  of 
Illinois,  Texas,  Iowa,  Arkansas,  Missouri,  Michigan,  and  Wis- 
consin.^ 

In  this  respect  we  cannot  forbear  from  contrasting  Jones 
and  Barton.  While  the  one  brought  up  a  family  whose  male 
line  for  decades  produced  noted  statesmen  and  politicians  and 
whose  female  branch  perpetuated  the  sterling  qualities  of  its 
sire  in  a  long  list  of  descendants,  the  other  died  a  bachelor. 
The  former  lives  in  hundreds  of  his  lineal  descendants;  the 
latter  is  remembered  only  in  the  pages  of  history  and  in  the 
memoirs  of  his  contemporaries  and  admirers. 

One  of  the  most  devoted  friends  and  worshippers  of  Barton 
was  a  reserved  and  refined  young  delegate,  who  only  four  years 
before  had   been  admitted   to  the  territorial  bar  of  Missouri. 


«  Rice  .Jones,  the  eldest  son,  was  an  early  and  brilliant  lawyer  at  Kaskaskia 
in  1806.  He  was  a  member  of  the  lower  house  in  the  legislature  of  Indiana  Ter- 
ritory and  his  prominent  and  successful  fight  for  the  separation  of  Illinois  from 
that  territory  resulted  in  his  untimely  death  at  the  hands  of  an  assassin. 

John  Rice  Jones,  another  son,  became  prominent  in  public  life  in  Texas. 
After  helping  that  State  achieve  her  independence,  he  was  appointed  tlie  first 
Postmaster  (ieneral  under  the  Republic:  and  also  under  the  provisional,  ad  interim. 
and  constitutional  governments.  Two  of  his  brothers,  Augustus  and  Myers 
Fisher,  also  achieved  distinction  in  the  Lone  Star  State. 

The  most  prominent  son,  George  Wallace  Jones,  after  holding  office  in  Mis- 
souri and  serving  in  the  Black  Hawk  War,  was  elected  a  Delegate  to  Congress 
from  Michigan  Territory  and  later  from  the  Territory  of  Wisconsin,  and  in  IS-IS 
was  elected  onv.  of  the  llrst  two  United  States  Senators  from  Iowa.  I)elng  reelected 
to  that  ofllce  in    1S52. 

A  daughter,  Harri(a  .lones,  married  the  Honoral)]!*  .lohn  Scott,  wlio  was 
Mi.s.souri's  third  territorial  Delegate  to  Congress  and  who  from  IsiiO  to  lSL»(i  was 
that  state's  only  Repre.s(!ntative  in  the  national  legislature.  Another  daughter, 
Klizab(!th  .Jones,  married  the  Honoral)le  Andrew  Scott  of  Mi.ssouri.  wi»o  lield  a 
Federal  judge.ship  in  Arkansas.  Cf.,  Wilkes,  Geo.  W.  Jones,  in  la.  Hist.  Record. 
First  Series,  V.  43:i-4.'j«;  W.  A.  Rurt  Jones,  John  Rice  Jones,  in  Chicago  Hist. 
Soc.  Coll.  IV.  230-270;  liozier,  Jlisl.  Miss.  Valley.  271-27S;  llouck.  op.  eit.,  HI. 
256f;  Conrad,  Ency.  Mo.  Hist.,  IV.  470. 


Fathers  of  the  State.  141 

Never  did  the  law  of  the  attraction  of  opposites  work  with 
greater  force  than  in  the  lives  of  David  Barton  and  Edward 
Bates.  Although  maintaining  a  friendship  similar  to  that 
which  existed  between  David  and  Jonathan,  they  were  in  habits 
the  antipodes  of  each  other.  The  one  was  not  only  a  confirmed 
victim  of  drink  but  led  one  of  the  most  depraved  and  immoral 
lives  in  the  history  of  great  American  statesmen;  the  other  was 
the  first  president  and  the  chief  organizer  of  the  Missouri  Tem- 
perance Society,  and,  according  to  his  most  intimate  friends 
and  most  bitter  enemies,  was  an  example  of  cleanliness  and 
purity  in  his  every  private  act.  While  Jones  commanded  the 
respect  of  the  convention  by  the  strength  of  his  logic,  and 
Barton  won  its  good  will  and  admiration  by  the  persuasiveness 
and  brilliance  of  his  oratory,  the  youthful  Bates  entered  into 
the  hearts  of  all  by  virtue  of  his  subtle  mind,  his  pleasing  and 
sincere  manner,  his  high  moral  fiber,  and  his  remarkable  ability 
as  a  convincing  speaker.  Edward  Bates  was  not  only  the  most 
beloved  but  in  many  respects  w^as  one  of  the  greatest  men  Mis- 
souri has  produced.  His  ideals  were  of  the  highest  order,  his 
public  career  the  longest — being  finally  crowned  with  a  Cabinet 
position  after  nearly  a  half  century  of  unremitting  labors — and 
his  entire  life  a  model  of  success  before  the  bar,  on  the  floor, 
and  in  the  home. 

The  pupil  of  one  of  the  most  prominent  lawyers  in  the 
Mississippi  Valley,  Rufus  Easton,  who  was  also  the  teacher  of 
that  remarkable  but  unfortunate  advocate,  Joshua  Barton,  Ed- 
ward Bates  in  turn  became  the  friend  and  preceptor  of  the  most 
brilliant  and  learned  member  of  the  Missouri  Bar,  James  O. 
Broadhead.  Although  essentially  a  lawyer.  Bates  was  one  of  the 
chief  organizers  and  for  decades  was  the  leader  of  the  Whig  party 
in  Missouri.  Even  after  the  rise  of  that  great  Whig  statesman, 
James  S.  Rollins,  he  still  retained  in  a  large  degree  the  mentor- 
ship  of  his  party.  While  Bates  is  perhaps  better  known  as  a 
politician  than  as  an  advocate,  he  occupied  comparatively  few 
public  offices.  Some  may  explain  this  on  the  ground  of  his 
having  belonged  to  the  minority  party  in  Missouri;  but  we  are 
inclined  to  credit  it  to  his  dislike  of  office  holding.  Although 
Edward  Bates  was  a  remarkably  successful  lawyer,  it  required 


142  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

his  constant  efforts  in  that  profession  to  meet  the  expense  of 
rearing  his  large  family.  To  him  the  holding  of  public  offices 
was  a  sacrifice,  and  it  was  only  because  of  his  highly  developed 
sense  of  civic  duty  that  he  was  at  times  induced  to  enter  actively 
into  public  life.  Notwithstanding  his  disinclination  along  this 
line,  his  record  in  both  state  and  national  politics  is  one  of  the 
longest  and  most  successful  in  the  history  of  the  Middle  West. 
His  first  office  was  held  at  the  early  age  of  twenty-four, 
when  he  was  appointed  Prosecuting  Attorney  of  the  Northern 
Circuit  of  Missouri  Territory;  his  last  public  position  was  en- 
joyed after  he  had  reached  the  ripe  age  of  seventy,  when  he  held 
the  ofifice  of  Attorney  General  in  the  first  Cabinet  of  President 
Lincoln.  During  the  forty-seven  years  which  intervened  be- 
tween his  initiation  into  and  graduation  from  public  life,  Edward 
Bates  was  elected  or  appointed  to  the  following  offices:  dele- 
gate to  Missouri's  first  constitutional  convention  in  1820;  first 
Attorney  General  of  Missouri,  1820;  State  Representative  in 
Missouri  Legislature,  1822  and  1834;  State  Senator,  1830; 
United  States  District  Attorney  for  Missouri,  1824;  Missouri's 
second  Representative  in  Congress,  1826;  appointed  Secretary 
of  War  in  1850  by  President  Fillmore  but  refused  the  office; 
and  Judge  of  the  St.  Louis  Land  Court,  1858.  Besides  holding 
these  offices,  he  was  three  times  brought  prominently  before 
the  eyes  of  the  nation.  First,  in  1847,  while  president  of  the 
first  River  and  Harbor  Improvement  Convention  held  in 
America,  Bates  attracted  the  attention  of  both  Canada  and 
the  United  States.  His  great  speech  delivered  before  that 
body  marks  an  epoch  in  the  history  of  Federal  Aid  for  internal 
improvements  located  off  the  tide-waters  of  the  seas.  This 
speech  was  made  without  previous  preparation,  and  unfortu- 
nately, it  was  very  imperfectly  recorded.  We  are  told  that 
every  reporter  present  forgot  both  duty  and  interest  while 
listening  to  it  and  that  the  copies  sent  to  the  offices  in  New 
York,  Chicago,  and  St.  Louis,  were  the  result  of  a  hasty  council 
of  the  various  newspaper  representatives  who  were  forced  to 
rely  vsolely  on  their  memory.  Notwithstanding  this  incom- 
plete and  very  unsatisfactory  manner  of  presentation  to  the 
public,  the  effect  of  this  speech  on  the  nation  was  electrical. 


Fathers  of  the  State.  143 

Even  that  great  statesman,  John  C.  Calhoun,  who  for  years 
had  consistently  and  successfully  opposed  the  position  here 
taken  by  Bates,  was  won  over  by  the  skill  and  logic  of  this 
exposition  of  national  aid  to  strictly  internal  improvements. 

The  second  rise  of  Bates  to  national  fame  was  his  refusal 
in  1850  to  accept  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War  in  President 
Fillmore's  Cabinet.  Not  only  was  his  appointment  to  this 
office  unsolicited  by  Bates  but  it  came  as  a  surprise  to  him. 
Conditions  for  his  acceptance  were  the  most  propitious,  and 
the  country  could  scarcely  credit  the  news  of  his  refusal.  His 
reason,  however,  was  satisfactory  to  all.  He  frankly  explained 
that  the  cost  of  rearing  his  large  family,  which  consisted  of 
seventeen  children,  prevented  his  relinquishing  even  tempo- 
rarily his  lucrative  law  practice. 

In  1856  Bates  was  president  of  the  National  Whig  Con- 
vention which  met  in  Baltimore.  In  1858  Harvard  University 
conferred  on  him  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Laws  in  honor  of  his 
ability  as  a  statesman,  an  orator,  and  a  lawyer.  Having  be- 
come a  Republican,  Bates  a  third  time  attracted  the  attention 
of  the  Nation  by  being  one  of  the  presidential  candidates  voted 
on  in  the  Chicago  Convention  of  1860,  and  after  Lincoln's 
election  he  was  offered  the  second  choice  of  Cabinet  positions, 
Seward  having  been  placed  for  the  office  of  Secretary  of  State. 
Bates  chose  the  Attorney  Generalship,  which  he  held  until 
1863-4,  when  ill  health  forced  his  resignation.  His  death  in 
1869  was  lamented  by  the  entire  Nation,  and  his  funeral  was 
one  of  the  largest  ever  witnessed  in  this  commonwealth.  The 
life  of  Bates  was  a  model  in  almost  every  respect.  We  cannot 
omit  noticing  one  of  his  rules  which  is  charged  with  revelations 
of  character.  On  the  best  authority.  Bates  was  never  know^n 
to  accept  at  law  a  bad  cause  however  large  the  fee;  and  in 
numerous  instances  he  engaged  in  a  just  cause  with  little  or  no 
compensation.'^ 


'  Bates  left  a  large  number  of  descendants,  some  of  them  achieved  great 
distinction  in  public  life.  One  son.  Barton  Bates,  held  the  high  position  of  a 
Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Missouri  and  the  office  of  Attorney  General; 
another,  John  Bates,  was  breveted  lieutenant-colonel  for  his  services  in  the 
Union  army  during  the  Civil  War,  and  in  1898,  at  the  breaking  out  of  the  Spanish- 
American  War,  was  made  brigadier  general  in  the  regular  army. 


144  Missouri  Stniggle  for  Statehood. 

In  summarizing  the  salient  features  in  the  Hves  of  Bates 
and  Barton,  one  sees  more  points  of  likeness  than  contrast, 
except  in  regard  to  their  personal  habits.  Both  belong  wholly 
to  Missouri;  both  were  lawyers  of  high  rank;  both  had  studied 
law  under  able  jurists;  both  were  interesting  and  at  times 
brilliant  speakers,  and  Barton's  eloquence  frequently  reached 
the  finish  and  polish  of  oratory;  both  were  politicians  and  be- 
longed to  the  same  party;  both  were  exceedingly  popular,  and 
Bates  exerted  an  influence,  both  at  home  and  over  the  nation, 
out  of  all  proportion  to  the  strength  of  his  party  in  Missouri; 
and  both  died  without  having  accumulated  any  considerable 
amount  of  property. 

When  we  turn,  however,  to  compare  the  lives  of  Jones  and 
Dodge  we  are  struck  with  the  relatively  few  points  of  likeness 
and  the  large  number  of  contrasts.  The  career  of  each  is  today 
the  prized  possession  of  three  American  commonwealths,  Jones 
belonging  to  the  history  of  Indiana,  Illinois,  and  Missouri, 
and  Dodge  of  Missouri,  Iowa,  and  Wisconsin.  Each  left  large 
families,  each  a  son  who  was  elected  a  Territorial  Delegate  to 
Congress  and  who  later  became  a  United  States  Senator.  On 
the  other  hand,  Jones  was  the  possessor  of  one  of  the  finest 
educations  possible  in  his  time  and  which  he  had  obtained  in 
the  oldest  of  English  universities;  Dodge  had  received  little 
schooling,  and  had  obtained  his  entire  education  principally 
by  rough  experience  with  men  and  by  self-instruction.  The 
one  was  a  scholar,  and  an  accomplished  linguist  in  six  lan- 
guages; the  other  was  familiar  with  only  the  English  tongue 
and  various  Indian  dialects.  One  was  at  the  head  of  the  legal 
profession  of  the  west  and  knew  personally  every  important 
member  of  the  bar  in  that  section;  the  other  became  at  one 
time  the  most  popular  and  the  most  celebrated  military  leader 
north  of  the  Ohio  and  west  of  the  Mississippi,  and  had  camped 
with  friends  and  foes  from  the  Canadian  line  to  the  Arkansas 
River  and  from  the  Great  Lakes  to  the  Rocky  Mountains.  One 
was  an  elocjuent  and  forceful  speaker;  the  other  a  man  of  few 
words  and  prone  to  physical  action.  Jones  starting  with 
nothing  amassed  an  immense  fortune;  Dodge  inheriting  a  large 
estate  lost  much  of  it,  and,  although  prosperous  in  most  of  his 


Fathers  of  the  State.  145 

mining  enterprises,  never  accumulated  more  than  a  moderate 
competence,  owing  to  his  liberaHty.  While  Jones  was  never 
more  than  a  candidate  for  election  to  the  United  States  Senate, 
Dodge  rose  step  by  step  from  the  office  of  deputy  sheriff  in  the 
Territory  of  Louisiana  to  the  Governorship  of  Wisconsin  Ter- 
ritory, was  elected  a  Delegate  to  Congress  from  that  Territory, 
and  finally  became  a  United  States  Senator  from  the  State  of 
Wisconsin.  It  is  even  reported  that  if  Dodge  had  allowed  his 
name  to  be  used  against  Van  Buren's  in  1844,  he  would  have 
been  nominated  and  elected  president  instead  of  Polk. 

General  Henry  Dodge,  or  "Honest  Harry  Dodge"  as  he 
was  affectionately  called  by  the  West,  was  born  at  Port  Vin- 
cennes,  October  12,  1782,  of  English  and  Scotch-Irish  parents. 
His  minority  was  spent  under  his  mother's  guidance  in  Ken- 
tucky and  later  under  his  father's  direction  in  upper  Louisiana. 
His  military  career  began  early  in  1806  and  continued  for 
nearly  three  decades;  his  civil  career  covered  a  period  of  over 
half  a  century.  The  former  won  him  a  place  in  popular  favor 
next  to  that  occupied  by  General  Jackson;  the  latter  raised 
him  to  the  high  honor  of  being  appointed  the  first  Governor 
of  the  original  Territory  of  Wisconsin  and  also  of  holding  that 
office  two  terms  after  the  separation  of  Iowa  Territory;  of 
being  elected  the  Territorial  Delegate  to  Congress  from  Wis- 
consin, when  a  change  in  national  politics  had  lost  him  his 
former  position;  and  finally  of  being  elected  the  first  United 
States  Senator  from  the  State  of  Wisconsin.  Although  not  a 
great  man  either  in  war  or  in  politics.  Dodge  was  an  eminently 
successful  one  in  both.  His  talents  were  essentially  those  of  a 
leader,  having  been  so  endowed  by  nature  in  both  mind  and 
body  and  so  trained  by  an  active  life  among  frontiersmen  and 
Indians.  Since  the  achievements  of  Dodge  in  the  field  are 
familiar  to  students  of  western  history,  we  will  turn  to  his  less 
known  though  perhaps  equally  interesting  and  valuable  career 
in  politics. 

In  politics  Dodge  was  a  staunch  Democrat,  and  a  warm, 
personal  friend  of  Jackson  and  Benton.  As  the  chief  executive 
of  Wisconsin  Territory  he  exerted  the  greatest  influence  in  the 
enacting  of  good  laws,  both  by  forceful  and  decisively  worded 

M  S— 10 


146  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

messages  and  by  his  direct  influence  over  the  members  of  the 
legislature.  He  had  that  rare  faculty  of  being  able  to  main- 
tain his  prerogatives  as  an  ofificial  without  making  enemies. 
His  success  in  dealing  with  scores  of  Indian  tribes  both  in  peace 
and  war  was  marked  and  to  them  he  was  one  of  the  most  feared 
and  respected  men  in  the  west.  The  red  sons  of  the  forest  and 
plain,  whether  enemies  or  friends,  relied  on  the  word  of  Henry 
Dodge  when  the  threats  and  promises  of  other  leaders  had 
failed  to  move  them.  His  strong  common  sense  and  fundamental 
honesty  is  shown  in  his  refusal  either  to  meddle  in  the  fight 
over  the  location  of  the  capital  of  Wisconsin  Territory  or  to 
accept  as  a  gift  any  lots  in  Madison. 

After  entering  the  halls  of  Congress,  he  always  felt  bound 
by  the  instructions  of  his  legislature  even  though  at  times 
these  were  contrary  to  his  personal  convictions.  He  consist- 
ently advocated  internal  improvements,  an  adequate  military 
force  on  the  frontier,  a  duty  on  lead,  and  cheap  land.  His 
convictions  on  the  land  question  were  so  statesmanlike  that  we 
marvel  at  the  comparative  silence  of  his  biographers  on  this 
subject.  As  Governor  of  Wisconsin  Territory  in  his  second 
annual  message  of  November  7,  1837,  he  said:  "Land  was  the 
immediate  gift  of  God  to  man,  and  from  the  earliest  history  of 
the  world  was  designed  for  cultivation  and  improvement,  and 
should  cease  to  be  an  object  of  speculation."  "Speculators  in 
the  public  lands  have  purchased  large  tracts  east  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi in  this  Territory,  which  remain  waste  until  they  will 
sell  for  the  highest  prices;  thereby  retarding  the  growth  and 
settlement  of  the  Territory  to  the  great  injury  of  the  actual 
settler."  On  February  24,  1853,  in  supporting  the  Homestead 
Bill,  Senator  Dodge  delivered  what  must  be  regarded  as  one  of 
the  most  truthful,  prophetic,  and  powerful  speeches  that  found 
its  way  into  the  record.  That  speech  is  now  almost  forgotten, 
but  before  its  centennial  can  be  observed,  not  only  scholars 
but  men  of  affairs  and  all  progressive  citizens  will  be  familiar 
with  the  fundamental  truths  it  contains.  We  can  recall  but 
few  instances  in  American  history  where  our  statesmen  and 
writers   have   as   thoroughly   appreciated   so   great   an   evil,   so 


Fathers  of  the  State,  147 

succinctly  described  it,  and  so  accurately  perceived  its  remedy 
as  Senator  Dodge  did  in  this  exposition  of  the  land  question.^ 

Interesting  as  is  the  life  of  Henry  Dodge,  we  do  not  regard 
it  more  fascinating  than  was  the  checkered  career  of  General 
Duff  Green.  In  several  respects  Duff  Green  was  one  of  the  most 
remarkable  of  those  men  who  framed  Missouri's  first  constitu- 
tion. He  was  beyond  dispute  the  most  versatile  man  in  the 
convention;  and  became  its  greatest  politician.  In  this  latter 
capacity  he  attained  a  national  reputation.  Later  he  achieved 
honor  as  a  diplomat,  and  finally  in  his  old  age  received  pos- 
terity's blessing  by  constructing  a  railroad  and  founding  a 
city. 

A  native  of  Kentucky,  Duff  Green  was  related  to  some  of 
the  best  and  oldest  families  in  Virginia.  At  an  early  age  he 
taught  school,  studied  law  and  was  admitted  to  the  bar,  and  sold 
goods  as  a  country  merchant.  Having  immigrated  to  Missouri 
Territory  about  1817  he  engaged  in  politics,  mail  contracts, 
speculation,  and  also  had  a  large  law  practice.  He  established 
the  first  mail  stage  line  west  of  the  Mississippi  river;  and  founded 
the   town   of   Chariton,   being  its   first   postmaster.     After   the 


8  The  following  extract  has  been  selected  from  that  speech:  "The  soil  of  a 
country  is  the  gift  of  the  Creator  to  His  creatures,  and,  in  a  government  of  the 
people,  that  gift  should  not  become  the  object  of  speculation  and  monopoly. 
Springing  from  the  earth  and  destined  to  return  to  it,  every  man  desires  to  possess 
some  of  it,  wants  a  spot  he  can  call  his  own.  It  is  a  deep  and  absorbing  feeling 
which  no  people  have  manifested  more  strongly  than  the  Americans.  If  you 
desire  to  render  this  Republic  indestructible,  to  extinguish  every  germ  of  agra- 
rianism,  and  secure  for  ages  the  quiet  enjoyment  of  vested  rights,  you  should  give 
an  interest  in  the  soil  to  every  man  who  asks  it.  If  every  quarter  section  of  the 
public  land  was  the  bona  fide  property  of  an  actual  settler,  it  would  do  more  to 
perpetuate  our  liberties  than  all  the  constitutions.  State  or  National,  which  have 
ever  been  devised.  Incorporate  every  man  with  the  soil,  throw  around  him  the 
blessed  endearments  of  home,  and  you  bind  him  in  an  allegiance  stronger  than  a 
thousand  oaths."  When  we  recall  that  these  words  were  spoken  not  by  a  rabid 
demagogue  or  a  pauper  social  disturber,  but  by  an  old  man  in  his  seventy-first 
year,  who  was  a  United  States  Senator,  who  held  large  landed  interests,  and  who 
based  his  statements  on  a  personal  experience  in  public  life  that  had  covered 
nearly  half  a  century,  then  the  weight  of  their  truth  is  increased  tenfold. 

If  it  were  not  too  much  of  a  digression  we  would  be  glad  to  enter  even  briefly 
into  the  private  life  of  this  celebrated  "Captain  of  Aggressive  Civilization,"  to 
describe  his  views  on  such  questions  as  religion  and  slavery,  to  eulogize  his  re- 
markable mother,  Nancy  Ann  Hunter,  who  alone  in  the  annals  of  this  nation  gave 
birth  to  two  United  States  Senators,  Henry  Dodge  and  Lewis  F.  Linn,  and  to 
expand  upon  this,  the  only  example  in  our  history,  of  a  father  and  son — Henry 
Dodge  and  Augustus  Caesar  Dodge — sitting  together  first  in  the  lower  house  of 
oiu'  national  legislature  and  finally  in  the  Senate  chamber. 


148  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

framing  of  Missouri's  first  constitution,  Duff  Green  was  elected 
a  representative  from  Howard  county  in  1820  to  the  State 
legislature  and  in  1822  was  elected  a  State  Senator.  In  1821 
he  was  chosen  Brigadier-General  of  the  first  brigade  of  the  first 
division  of  the  Missouri  militia,  and  owing  to  his  holding  this 
office  together  with  his  services  in  Kentucky  in  the  War  of  1812, 
he  was  always  known  as  General  Duff  Green.  In  1823  Green 
became  owner  and  editor  of  Benton's  organ,  the  St.  Louis 
Enquirer,  and  two  years  later  purchased  and  edited  the  JJyiited 
States  Telegraph  at  Washington.  From  that  time  to  his  death 
in  1875,  he  was  always  more  or  less  before  the  public.  As 
editor  of  the  Telegraph  he  became  one  of  the  most  powerful 
factors  in  national  politics,  and  is  credited  with  having  been 
one  of  the  chief  instruments  in  the  election  of  Jackson  in  1828. 
His  paper  was  then  given  the  government  patronage,  and  this 
placed  Green  in  good  financial  circumstances.  His  subsequent 
break  with  Jackson  in  1830,  his  support  of  Clay  in  1832  and  of 
Calhoun  in  1836,  did  not  ruin  him,  as  it  did  many  other  pol- 
iticians. His  paper  continued  to  wield  the  greatest  influence, 
and  was  known  for  its  aggressiveness  and  independence,  and 
for  its  large  and  philosophical  views  on  national  finance. 

General  Green  visited  Europe  frequently  on  important 
public  missions,  conferring  with  leading  statesmen  and  crowned 
heads.  In  1843  he  was  sent  to  Mexico  to  aid  in  conducting 
negotiations  for  the  acquisition  of  Texas;  and  under  President 
Taylor's  administration  was  again  dispatched  there  on  public 
business. 

In  later  life  he  took  the  contract  for  constructing  the 
Tennessee  Railroad  from  Dalton,  Georgia,  to  Knoxville,  Tenn- 
essee, and  was  one  of  the  founders  of  the  former  city.  In  the 
lives  of  few  men  are  there  crowded  so  many  different  and 
dramatic  events  as  are  revealed  in  Green's  career.  In  many 
ways  it  is  an  epitome  of  the  biography  of  the  (Mitiro  conwnlion 
of  1820. 

The  public  life  both  civil  and  military  of  these  forty-one 
men  is  quite  sufficient  to  justify  our  stating  that  seldom  in  the 
history  of  any  commonwealth  established  after  1781)  has  there 
been   a  more  notable  gathering  of  state  constitution   framers 


JOHN  RKI'.  jOM'.S. 
I-"niin  Huuck's  //,../.  M„.  Ill    i-^j. 


JOHN    D.  COOK. 
I'K.in  H.-uck's  Hist.  Mo.  III.  266. 


'     '..,/:, 


JOHN  scon. 

l-'rom  Houck'b  llisl.  M;.  III.    n 


,|0.\.\TH.\.\    R.XMS.W. 
From  Huuck's  lli<t    Mo.  III.  26?. 


B.  H.  RKE\  ES. 
Kiuiii  Huuck's  Hist.  Mo    HI.  25<y. 


HIRAM  H.  BABKR. 
I'luin  Houck's  Hist.  Mo.  HI.  265. 


SOME  DKLKGA'l'KS  lO  THE  MlSSOl  Rl  COXS'll  TLIIOXAL 
COWEXriOX  1820. 

72834—148 


Fathers  of  the  State.  149 

than  was  this  one.  It  included  the  first  United  States  Cabinet 
official  appointed  from  west  of  the  Mississippi  river,  three  men 
who  later  represented  Missouri  and  Wisconsin  in  the  United 
States  Senate,  and,  so  far  as  influence  on  Missouri's  constitution 
is  concerned,  a  fourth  United  States  Senator  might  be  men- 
tioned. ^  Of  those  who  had  or  were  to  enter  the  lower  house 
of  Congress  there  numbered  four;^°  and  two  delegates  later  sat 
in  the  gubernatorial  chair  of  Wisconsin  and  of  Missouri. ^^  One 
delegate  was  to  hold  the  office  of  lieutenant-governor;  two  that 
of  attorney  general;  two  that  of  secretary  of  state;  and  two 
that  of  state  auditor. ^^  Two  of  the  leading  members  of  this 
convention  became  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Missouri, 
two  were  later  circuit  judges  in  this  State,  and  one  had  pre- 
sided over  the  first  circuit  court  held  west  of  the  Mississippi 
River. ^^ 

The  membership  of  the  convention  is  also  noteworthy  in 
the  remarkably  large  number  of  state  legislators  who  composed 
it.  The  laws  of  five  American  commonwealths  today  bear  the 
influence  of  twenty-three  of  the  framers  of  Missouri's  first 
constitution.  Including  its  secretary,  the  convention  com- 
manded the  ability  of  sixteen  state  senators,  and    sixteen  state 


»  Edward  Bates,  appointed  Secretary  of  War  by  President  Fillmore,  1850 , 
and  resigned;  later  appointed  Attorney  General  by  President  Lincoln  1861-1864; 
David  Barton,  first  United  States  Senator  from  Missouri  1820-1830;  Henry  Dodge, 
first  United  States  Senator  from  Wisconsin  1848-1857.  Thomas  H.  Benton, 
the  colleague  of  Barton,  was  United  States  Senator  from  ^lissouri  1820-1850. 

>»  Edward  Bates,  Missouri's  second  Representative,  1826;  Henry  Dodge, 
first  Delegate  from  Wisconsin  Territory,  1841-1845:  Samuel  S.  Hammond,  Rep- 
resentative from  Georgia.  1803;  John  Scott,  Missouri's  third.  Territorial  Delegate, 
1816  (17) — 1820,  and  Missouri's  first  Representative,  1820-1826. 

"  Henry  Dodge,  first  territorial  governor  of  Wisconsin  Territory,  1836-1841, 
and  again,  1845-1848;  Alexander  IMcNair,  first  state  governor  of  IMissouri,  1820- 
1824. 

>- Benjamin  H.  Reeves,  Missouri's  second  lieutenant-governor,  1824;  Edward 
Bates,  Missom-i's  first  attorney  general,  1820,  and  John  Rice  Jones,  former  at- 
torney general  of  Indiana  Territory,  1805;  Samuel  S.  Hammond,  later  secretary 
of  state  of  South  Carolina,  about  1830,  and  William  G.  Pettus  (secretary  of  the 
convention),  Missouri's  second  secretary  of  state,  1821-24;  Benjamin  H.  Reeves, 
Missouri's  second  state  auditor,  1821-23,  and  Hiram  H.  Baber,  Missouri's  sixth 
state  auditor,   1837-45. 

"John  D.  Cook  and  John  Rice  Jones,  two  of  the  first  three  judges  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Missouri,  1820;  David  Barton,  judge  of  Northern  Circuit  of 
Missovu-i  Territory  1815-18,  held  first  Circuit  Court  west  of  the  Mississippi; 
James  Evans  and  Richard  S.  Thomas,  Circuit  Court  Judges  of  Missouri,  1837 
and   1822. 


150  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

representatives, — there  being  eight  members  who  later  sat  in 
both  houses. ^"^  In  fact  to  each  of  the  first  ten  General  Assem- 
blies of  the  State  of  Missouri  there  were  elected  from  one  to 
eleven  men  who  had  sat  in  this  convention,  and  two  became 
the  president  pro  tempore  of  the  Senate. ^^  Nor  was  their  direct 
influence  on  Missouri's  legislature  limited  to  the  common- 
wealth period.  During  the  previous  eight  years  of  the  exist- 
ence of  Missouri  Territory  there  appear  on  the  general  assembly 
rolls  the  names  of  eight  men  as  members  of  her  legislative 
council  and  eight  as  representatives  who  in  1820  sat  as  delegates 
in  the  convention. ^^  In  each  of  the  four  general  assemblies  of 
Missouri  Territory  there  were  from  four  to  eight  members  who 
were  elected  delegates  in  1820.  Thus  for  a  period  of  thirty- 
eight  years  the  laws  of  Missouri  were  more  or  less  moulded  by 
those  who  framed  her  first  constitution.  And  for  eleven  years 
her  only  representatives  in  Congress  were  those  who  were  dele- 
gates in  1820.  What  is  still  more  remarkable  is  that  Missouri's 
first  constitution  was  directly  influenced  by  her  first  three 
United  States  Senators,  one  of  them,  Benton, — although  not 
a  delegate — continued  in  the  upper  national  chamber  for  thirty 
years.  But,  excepting  Edward  Bates,  DufT  Green,  and  Henry 
Dodge,  not  a  single  member  of  this  convention  held  an  im- 
portant civil  position  in  public  life  twenty  years  after  the 
framing  of  Missouri's  first  constitution.     A  new  generation  of 


><  The  five  states  are  Missouri,  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  Georgia,  and  South 
Carolina.  The  following  delegates  had  been  or  became  state  senators  in  Mis- 
souri: Barton.  1834;  Bates,  1830;  Bettis,  1828;  Brown,  1826;  Burckhartt,  1824; 
1830;  Buckner,  1822;  Chouteau,  1820;  Dawson,  1824.  1834;  Emmons,  1820; 
Green,  1822;  Perry,  1820;  Pratte,  1820;  Reeves,  1820,  1832;  Talbott,  1820;  Thomas, 
1826;  (Pettus,  1832).  Of  these  the  eight  who  were  also  representatives  were: 
Bates,  1822,  1834;  Bettis,  1822,  1824,  1826;  Burckhartt.  1822.  1826;  Buckner. 
1830;  Dawson,  1832;  Emmons,  1836,  1838;  Green,  1820;  Reeves,  Kentucky  Legis- 
lature. Besides  these  were  eight  who  held  seats  in  the  lower  house  of  Missouri. 
Georgia.  South  Carolina.  Kentucky  and  Tennessee.  Nathaniel  Cook  (Missouri), 
1822;  Hammond  (CJeorgia  and  South  Carolina);  Heath  (Missouri).  1820:  Henry 
(South  Carolina);  Lillard  (Missouri),  1820.  and  also  in  Tennessee  Legislature; 
McForron  (Missouri).  1820;  Ramsay  (Kentucky),  and  also  in  Missouri  Legis- 
lature,  1822;   Ray    (Missouri).    1S20. 

"Emmons,   1822;   Burckhartt.    1830. 

«•  The  eight  delegates  who  had  been  in  the  legislative  council  were  Emmons, 
Hammond,  Scott.  Jones,  I'crry.  Riddick.  J.  (^ook.  Dawson;  in  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives. Thomas.  Byrd.  Heath,  Dawson.  N.  Cook.  Talhott,  Barton.  Sullivan. 
Hammond  was  president  of  the  llrst  legislative  council  in  1813,  and  Emmons  in 
the  last  in  1818.     Barton  was  speaker  of  the  house  in  1818. 


Fathers  of  the  State.  151 

political  leaders  had  risen,  and  in  the  place  of  Barton,  Burck- 
hartt,  Buckner,  the  two  Cooks,  Dawson,  McNair,  Scott,  Em- 
mons, Evans,  Hammond,  Jones,  Reeves,  and  other  popular 
and  influential  members  of  the  convention  of  1820,  the  pilots 
of  the  ship  of  state  were  such  noted  men  as  Atchison,  Campbell, 
Rollins,  Price,  Doniphan,  Phelps,  Woodson,  Boggs,  Jackson, 
Gardenhire,    Switzler,    Bay,   Broadhead,   Bingham  and  others. 

In  addition  to  holding  many  minor  public  offices  as  those 
of  county  clerk,  recorder,  sheriff  and  treasurer,  and  justice  of 
the  peace,  some  of  the  delegates  were  to  be  or  had  been  ap- 
pointed to  important  civil  positions  under  the  National  Govern- 
ment, besides  those  already  mentioned.  Among  these  were  the 
offices  of  Marshal,  Deputy  Marshal,  Attorney  General,  Deputy 
Attorney  General,  District  Attorney,  Lieutenant-Governor  or 
Commandant  of  upper  Louisiana,  Surveyor  General  and  Deputy 
Surveyor  General  of  Illinois,  Missouri  and  Arkansas,  Register 
and  Clerk  of  various  Land  Offices,  Judge  of  the  St.  Louis  Land 
Court,  Receiver  of  Public  Money  at  St.  Louis,  and  Diplomat. ^^ 

The  war  record  of  the  convention  delegates  and  its  secretary 
is  also  sufficiently  noteworthy  to  warrant  attention.  Extending 
at  least  from  1775,  if  not  prior  to  that  year,  to  1850  this  record 
embraced  the  first  three  great  national  wars  of  the  United 
States  besides  including  the  famous  Black  Hawk  War  and  many 
Indian  engagements.  Twenty-one  men  of  this  convention,  or 
exactly  one-half  its  membership  including  the  secretary,  had 
seen  or  were  to  see  military  service.  Of  these,  three  had  served 
as  colonels  in  the  Revolutionary  War ;  ^^  eighteen  had  been  in 


I'Baber,  United  States  Deputy  Marshal  (1820,  1830),  and  United  States 
Marshal  Missouri  (1852);  Barton,  Deputy  Attorney  General  Missouri  Territory 
(1813);  Bates,  Judge  St.  Louis  Land  Court  (1858);  J.  Cook,  United  States  Dis- 
trict Attorney  Missouri;  Dodge,  U^nited  States  Marshal  ISIissouri  Territory  and 
State  (1813-1822);  Findlay,  Register  United  States  Land  Office  Lexington,  Mis- 
souri (1823);  Green,  United  States  Diplomat;  Hammond,  First  Lieutenant 
Governor  or  Commandant  of  upper  Louisiana  (1804);  Jones,  Attorney  General 
Indian  Territory  (1801-05);  McNair,  Register  St.  Louis  Land  Office  (1818); 
Pratte,  Receiver  Public  IMoney  at  St.  Louis;  Rector,  United  States  Surveyor 
General  of  Illinois,  Missouri  and  Arkansas;  Riddick,  Secretary  Board  of  Land 
Commissioners  at  St.  Louis  (1808);  Sullivan,  United  States  Deputy  Surveyor 
General  of  Illinois,  Missouri  and  Arkansas;  Pettus,  clerk  Land  Office  at  St.  Louis 
(1818). 

»«  Hammond,  Henry,  and  Lillard. 


152  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

the  War  of  1812/^  ranging  in  rank  from  volunteer  to  brigadier- 
general  ;  four  later  served  in  the  Black  Hawk  War ;  ^^  and  one  in 
the  Mexican  War.^^  Boone  and  Dodge  gained  the  greatest 
distinction  in  the  field  of  War.  One  attained  the  higher  rank; 
the  other,  the  greater  popularity.  Boone  held  the  longer 
record  and  after  twenty-one  years  of  continuous  service  in  the 
United  States  army  was  finally  commissioned  lieutenant- 
colonel  at  the  age  of  seventy-one.^^  Prior  to  his  connection 
with  the  regular  army,  he  had  fought  in  the  War  of  1812  and  had 
seen  service  in  various  Indian  campaigns.  Dodge  made  an 
enviable  record  in  his  campaign  against  Black  Hawk,  and, 
after  the  overthrow  of  that  celebrated  Indian  Chief,  won  fame 
in  the  United  States  army  as  colonel  of  the  first  regiment  of 
dragoons  in  the  army  history  of  the  United  States.  Prior  to 
his  connection  with  the  regular  army,  Dodge  had  continuously 
held  some  rank  in  either  the  Missouri  or  Wisconsin  militias  from 
1806.  The  war  record  of  Dodge  covers  a  period  of  nearly 
twenty-nine  years;  that  of  Boone  over  thirty-one  years. 

While  the  military  and  the  civil  public  careers  of  western 
pioneers  are  both  interesting  and  significant,  we  are  inclined 
to  regard  with  some  favor  those  bits  of  biographical  information 
which  are  usually  found  in  the  back  of  Bibles,  or  in  the  columns 
of  the  press,  or  which  can  be  obtained  only  from  descendants 
and  friends  of  those  long  departed.  We  cannot  here  examine 
all  the  wealth  of  detail  extant  relating  to  the  delegates  and  will 
generalize  on  such  points  as  occupation,  nativity,  descent, 
education,  economic  position,  and  age.  Under  the  best  con- 
ditions it  is  almost  impossible  to  verify  every  statement  relating 
to  this  kind  of  information.  And,  we  have  therefore  inclined 
towards  sacrificing  spectacular  and  striking  generalizations  for 
the  sake  of  accuracy.  One  of  the  most  fascinating  and  profitable 
studies  of  any  people  is  that  relating  to  their  occupation.     To 

'•Barton,  Bates,  Boone,  Byrd,  Cleaver,  N.  Cook.  Dawson,  Dodgo,  Emmons. 
Green,  Jonos,  Lillard,  McNair,  Prattc,  liamsey.  Hector.  Klddlck  and  Pettus. 
Dodge  was  brigadlcr-Keneral  of  the  Missouri  militia;  Kainsay  hold  the  same  rank 
In  the  Kentucky  militia. 

'•  Boone,  Brown.  Byrd,  and  Dodge.     Dodge  was  called  the  horo  of  this  war. 

"  Boone. 

«'  1853. 


Fathers  of  the  State.  153 

the  historian  the  means  employed  by  man  to  gain  a  livelihood 
takes  rank  in  importance  with  his  religion  and  race.  To  the 
pioneer  it  was  as  important  and  pressing  as  it  is  today  to  the 
greatest  specialist  in  the  city.  There  is  this  difference  to  be 
noted,  however:  the  pioneer  was  as  a  rule  more  versatile;  the 
twentieth  century  man  better  trained.  The  one  successfully 
pursued  from  two  to  a  half  dozen  different  occupations;  the 
latter  is  more  frequently  engaged  in  but  one  line  of  labor.  Even 
in  politics,  where  are  found  the  followers  of  every  occupation, 
and  which  is  as  cosmopolitan  in  professions  and  trade  as  New 
York  in  people,  there  had  not  appeared  in  1820  that  general 
devotion  on  the  part  of  one  class  of  citizens  which  later  became 
so  marked.  Of  course  politics  was  not  then  so  profitable,  unless 
one  wished  to  incur  public  disfavor  by  land  speculation,  and 
the  spoils  system  had  not  yet  become  the  Mecca  of  public  life. 
But,  waiving  these  two  extraneous  reasons,  we  still  believe 
that  politics,  in  common  with  most  all  other  occupations,  ex- 
cepting the  law,  was  not  so  specialized  a  means  of  livelihood 
in  1820  as  it  is  today.  Nor  was  politics  so  peculiarly  the  pos- 
session of  the  legal  class  as  it  is  today,  although  practically  all 
lawyers  were  also  politicians.  Of  the  forty-one  delegates 
elected  to  the  convention  of  1820,  thirty  were  more  or  less 
active  in  politics,  of  whom  only  nine  were  essentially  lawyers.-^ 
Every  lawyer  in  the  convention  was  a  politician,  but  all  the 
politicians  were  not  lawyers. 

Although  the  various  occupations  of  each  delegate  are 
now  fairly  well  known,  it  is  still  almost  an  impossibility  to  as- 
certain which  was  the  principal  vocation  of  each  one  at  that 
time.  Duff  Green  was  a  lawyer  with  a  large  practice;  he  was 
also  an  astute  politician,  a  successful  business  man,  a  large 
land  owner  and  speculator,  had  formerly  been  a  teacher,  and 
later  became  an  editor,  publisher,  railroad  contractor,  and 
diplomat.  Similar  examples  of  the  difficulty  of  selecting  a 
delegate's  principal  means  of  livelihood  are  found  in  the  lives 
of  a  majority  of  these  men.  Was  Dodge  a  lead  mine  operator 
or  a  farmer;  was  Jones  one  of  these,  or  was  he  a  lawyer  and 
politician;  was  Nathaniel  Cook  a  politician,  a  farmer  or  a  sur- 

•»  Heath  practiced  law  but  he  was  more  essentially  a  business  man. 


154  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

veyor;  was  Boone  a  farmer  or  a  surveyor;  was  Bettis  a  mer- 
chant, a  farmer,  or  a  doctor;  was  McFerron  a  politician  or  a 
teacher?  We  are  even  driven  to  this:  Every  delegate  except 
two  engaged  in  two  or  more  lines  of  work.  In  1820  these 
forty-one  men  represented  eight  occupations  under  the  very 
broad  classifications  of  law,  politics,  business — including  mer- 
cantile and  mining  pursuits,  fur  trading,  salt  manufacturing 
and  finance — ,  agriculture — including  farming  and  land  owning — , 
medicine,  civil  engineering — confined  to  surveying — ,  education — 
confined  to  teaching — ,  and  journalism. 

Politics  absorbed  the  partial  attention  of  thirty  delegates 
but  it  was  the  sole  occupation  of  only  one  or  two  of  these. 
Besides  the  nine  lawyers  in  the  convention  politics  included 
eight  business  men,  nine  engaged  in  agriculture  or  land  owning, 
two  in  medicine,  two  in  engineering  and  two  in  education. 
This  almost  universal  passion  for  politics  and  public  life  was 
characteristic  of  the  west  at  this  time.  Every  lawyer  was 
seized  with  it.  Every  man  who  had  attained  any  degree  of 
popularity  wanted  to  hold  office.  As  a  rule  it  included  the  best 
and  most  able  men  in  a  community.  Politics  was  then  an 
honorable  profession  to  which  all  turned  even  at  a  sacrifice. 
It  is  academic  whether  these  men  regarded  politics  as  a  duty 
or  as  a  pleasant  recreation.  At  all  events  we  are  certain  that 
very  few  looked  upon  it  as  a  great  prize  except  for  the  honor 
attached  to  it.  No  man  was  so  busy,  so  engaged  in  accumulat- 
ing wealth,  so  learned,  or  so  able  that  he  spurned  public  office. 
We  believe  several  causes  brought  about  this  admirable  state 
of  mind.  The  widespread  and  long  continued  interest  of  the 
colonies  in  public  affairs  for  nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century;  the 
internal  crisis  between  1783  and  1789;  the  relations  with  Eng- 
land and  Spain  in  the  nineties;  the  armed  truce  or  masked  war 
with  England  and  France  during  the  first  decade  of  the  new 
century;  the  Louisiana  Purchase;  the  War  of  1812;  the  numerous 
Indian  wars;  the  great  domestic  questions  which  arose  from 
1783  to  1820;  all  trained  the  American  people  to  a  consideration 
of  public  questions.  Intense  interest  in  politics  tends  to  create 
a  desire  to  enter  public  life.  This  is  more  cjuickly  acted  upon 
when  there  is  an  honor  instead  of  a  stigma  attached  to  office 


Fathers  of  the  State.  155 

holding;  and  when  the  greatest  opposition  to  overcome  is 
merely  votes  and  not  machines  and  vested  interests.  The 
conditions  in  these  respects  were  ideal  in  1820  for  a  citizen's 
participation  in  public  life.  Another  favoring  factor  was  the 
then  more  circumscribed  fields  of  intellectual  activity.  This 
gave  an  impetus  unknown  today  to  the  study  of  political  science, 
which  study  was,  however,  as  intrinsically  interesting  and 
absorbing  then  as  it  has  ever  been.  In  addition,  might  be 
mentioned  the  greater  relative  power  of  the  orator  and  con- 
versationalist as  compared  with  that  of  the  editor.  The  latter 
was  handicapped  for  his  information  and  in  his  circulation  by 
the  poor  mail  facilities.  Missouri  with  a  white  population  of 
over  55,000  in  1820,  had  but  five  newspapers,  and  these  were 
located  in  four  towns.  Only  one  newspaper  to  supply  the 
news  to  the  thousands  of  settlers  west  and  north  of  St.  Charles 
and  St.  Louis!  Only  one  paper  to  inform  the  territory  lying 
south  and  west  of  Jackson,  Missouri!  Today  a  town  of  10,000 
has  from  two  to  five  papers,  and  its  inhabitants  take  perhaps 
a  dozen  others  printed  within  a  radios  of  one  hundred  and 
fifty  miles.  Today  no  county  is  without  its  weekly  edition  of 
local  news,  and  many  villages  of  less  than  five  hundred  inhabit- 
ants have  their  own  press.  The  newspaper  of  1820  was  as 
influential  wherever  it  circulated  as  any  paper  is  today  among 
its  subscribers,  but  natural  and  mechanical  obstacles  pre- 
scribed its  limits  then  within  narrow  bounds.  The  personality 
of  the  politician — using  this  word  in  its  original  and  better 
meaning — and  his  ability  as  a  speaker,  were  therefore  enhanced. 
In  no  profession  are  these  qualities  when  highly  developed 
either  so  advantageously  and  widely  displayed  or  so  assiduously 
cultivated  as  in  the  practice  of  law.  And,  no  profession,  we 
believe,  has  so  directly  and  so  significantly  influenced  our 
government  and  laws  as  the  legal  class.  It  is,  therefore,  quite 
remarkable  that  only  ten  of  the  forty-one  delegates  were  mem- 
bers of  the  Missouri  territorial  bar;  and  one  of  these  was  more 
accurately  a  business  man  than  a  lawyer.  Today,  over  fifty 
per  cent  of  the  upper  house  members  of  our  state  legislature 
are  lawyers,  and  our  state  executives  are  as  learned  in  law  as 
our  attorneys-general;  in   1820  less  than  twenty-five  per  cent 


156  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

of  the  delegates  who  framed  the  first  constitution  of  Missouri 
followed  that  profession,  and  this  state's  first  governor  had 
never  been  admitted  to  the  bar, — as  far  as  could  be  learned. 
The  significance,  if  not  the  explanation,  of  this  peculiar  attitude 
on  the  part  of  the  people  of  Missouri  in  1820  can  be  appreciated 
only  after  a  consideration  of  the  history  of  the  Missouri  terri- 
torial bar. 

During  the  Spanish  regime  in  upper  Louisiana  there  was 
no  lawyer  class.  This  was  due  primarily  to  the  manner  of  law 
interpretation  that  prevailed.  The  American  occupation  in 
1804  immediately  attracted  to  this  district  members  of  the 
bars  of  many  states  and  territories.  Lawyers  of  ability  and 
prominence  immigrated  here  from  every  section  of  the  nation. 
The  north,  central  and  south  Atlantic  commonwealths  sent 
representatives,  as  well  as  that  country  which  lies  between 
the  Appalachian  Mountains  and  the  Mississippi  River.  Con- 
sidering the  small  population  of  upper  Louisiana,  the  amount 
of  litigation  was  remarkable,  and  much  of  this  was  highly 
remunerative.  The  hundreds  of  suits  over  the  valuable  Spanish 
land  grants  proved  an  especially  lucrative  field  for  the  legal 
profession.  This  kind  of  litigation  frequently  involved  prizes 
that  would  have  ransomed  a  prince,  and  the  rewards  to  ad- 
vocates were  in  proportion  to  the  value  of  the  case.  Under 
such  favorable  circumstances  it  is  not  surprising  that  we  find 
a  very  large  bar  in  Missouri  during  the  territorial  period.  Nor 
was  this  bar  less  noted  for  its  ability  than  for  its  numbers.  In 
fact  the  former  characteristic  is  more  prominent  and  significant 
than  the  latter.  The  nature  of  the  cases,  the  mixed  popula- 
tion, the  previous  domination  and  the  then  but  slightly  dimin- 
ished power  of  the  Spanish  law,  all  required  a  broad  and  acucC 
legal  mind  to  win  success  in  court.  The  result  was  a  bar  which 
in  pure,  legal  ability  undoubtedly  stood  very  high.-^  Other 
states  have  produced  greater  lawyers;  many  have  had  a  larger 
bar;  but  few  states  in  proportion  to  their  population  have  had 
so  many  lawyers  of  such  remarkable  ability  as  Missouri  did 
from  1804  to  1820.  It  is  hardly  an  exaggeration  to  state  that 
owing  to  the  conditions  named,  together  with  the  compactness 

**  Cf..  also  Hay.  Bench  and  liar  of  Missouri,  pp.  VI.  fT;  Houck,  op  cit..  III.  12. 


Fathers  of  the  State.  157 

of  the  settlements  in  Missouri  Territory,  and  the  peculiar 
organization  of  the  courts,  a  lawyer  of  little  ability  could  not 
make  a  living  by  his  profession  in  this  district.  Only  lawyers 
learned  in  the  law  and  skilled  in  pleading  and  cross-examina- 
tion could  survive.  Therefore  we  find  such  men  as  these  con- 
stituting the  legal  class  at  that  time:  Ezra  Hunt,  Henry  S. 
Geyer,  Silas  Bent,  John  F.  Ryland,  Hamilton  R.  Gamble, 
William  C.  Carr,  Abiel  Leonard,  David  Todd,  Mathias  Mc- 
Girk, Robt.  W.  Wells,  Geo.  Tomkins,  Thomas  H.  Benton, 
Rufus  Easton,  Rufus  Hemstead,  Johnson  Ranney,  John  B.  C. 
Lucas,  Alexander  Gray,  Rufus  Pettibone,  Luke  E.  Lawless, 
Peyton  R.  Hayden,  Nathaniel  Beverly  Tucker,  Joshua  Barton, 
Frederick  Bates,  David  Barton,  Edward  Bates,  Alexander 
Buckner,  John  D.  Cook,  James  Evans,  Duff  Green,  John  Rice 
Jones,  John  Scott,  and  R.  S.  Thomas.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact 
that  of  these  noteworthy  men  only  the  last  nine  were  elected 
delegates!  Perhaps  a  few  like  Lucas  had  been  defeated  on 
account  of  being  slavery  restrictionists,  but,  we  are  certain, 
these  formed  a  very  small  percentage  of  their  class.^^  This 
together  with  other  evidence  would  indicate  that  the  people 
of  Missouri  in  1820  preferred  to  have  their  constitution  framed 
by  other  classes  of  men.  They  did  not  realize  that  the  legal 
class  by  virtue  of  its  ability  alone  wields  an  influence  in  the 
field  of  legislation  out  of  all  proportion  to  its  numbers,  and  that 
in  the  convention  or  forum  it  has  always  enjoyed  a  preeminent 
position.  This  influence  and  position  of  lawyers  in  law  making 
bodies  have  in  this  country  been  strengthened  by  their  ability 
to  cooperate  with  other  classes.  And  in  this  respect  the  lawyer's 
most  natural  ally  has  been  and  still  is  the  business  man. 

An  eminent  authority  has  said  that  at  least  nine-tenths 
of  all  legislation  owe  their  origin,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  the 
associated  influence  of  the  merchant,  trader,  and  banker  on 
the  one  hand,  and  the  lawyer  on  the  other. -^  We  are  not  pre- 
pared to  examine  the  correctness  of  this  statement,  but,  we 
believe,  it  is  well  substantiated  in  the  framing  of  Missouri's 


"  Easton  had  died  at  this  time;  and  Hunt  and  Gamble  had  not  then  achieved 
distinction. 

"  Foote,  Bench  and  Bar  of  the  Southwest,  p.  3. 


158  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

first  constitution.  Although  only  eleven  business  men-^  and 
nine  lawyers  were  elected  delegates  to  the  convention,  their 
influence  in  that  body  was  without  a  serious  check.  In  the 
committees  of  the  convention  they  were  practically  supreme. 
The  president  of  the  convention  was  a  lawyer;  the  legislative 
committee  was  composed  of  a  lawyer,  a  business  man,  and  a 
politician;  the  executive  committee  was  composed  of  a  lawyer, 
a  surveyor,  and  a  farmer — the  latter  being  the  brother  of  a 
lawyer;  the  judiciary  committee  was  composed  of  three  lawyers; 
the  select  committee,  which  reported  on  the  work  of  the  three 
named  committees,  was  composed  of  three  lawyers,  and  a 
farmer;  the  committee  on  a  bill  of  rights,  etc.,  was  composed 
of  a  farmer,  a  business  man,  and  a  lawyer;  the  committee  on 
the  schedule  and  banking  was  composed  of  a  lawyer,  a  business 
man,  and  a  teacher;  the  revision  committee,  or  committee  on 
style,  and  the  enrollment  committee  were  each  composed  of 
two  lawyers,  and  a  teacher.  In  seven  of  these  eight  committees 
the  business  man  and  the  lawyer  constituted  a  majority  of  the 
membership;  and  in  the  eighth  these  two  classes  had  the  co- 
operation of  a  surveyor  whose  interests  were  identical  with 
theirs.-^  Of  the  twenty-five  committee  places  on  these  eight 
committees,  one  was  held  by  a  surveyor;  three,  by  teachers; 
three,  by  landed  men;  one,  by  a  politician;  three,  by  business 
men;  and  fourteen,  by  lawyers. 

This  remarkable  strength  of  the  lawyer  class  is  the  more 
significant  when  we  realize  that  there  were  thirteen  delegates 
in  the  convention  who  were  mainly  interested  in  agriculture 
and  landholding.23  We  would  not  be  understood  as  stating 
that  on  all  questions  that  arose  there  was  a  line  of  division  in 
the  convention  between  the  lawyers  and  business  men  on  the 


«'  The  following  delegates  were  engaged  principally  In  lousiness,  ranging 
from  a  tavern  keeper  and  store-keeper  to  a  banker  and  fur  inorolumt:  Baber, 
Burckhartt,  C^houtcuiu.  Dodge  (mine  operator),  Emmons.  Hammond,  (spec- 
ulator, more  allied  to  the  business  than  to  the  agricultural  class),  Heath.  Houts, 
McNair,   Pratte,   Kiddick. 

'•The  members  of  the  executive  committee  were  Rector,  a  surveyor;  N. 
Cook,  a  land  holder  and  a  brother  of  J.  Cook,  the  lawyer;  and  Evans,  a  lawyer. 

«•  Th(i  following  (U'lcgatcs  belonged  to  this  class:  Hettis,  Hoone — a  sur- 
veyor but,  wo  believe,  mor<i  intcrc'stcd  in  land  at  this  tinuv — ,  Brown.  Byrd.  Cleaver, 
N.  Cook.  Henry.  Hutchings,  Lillard,  I'erry,  Uamsay.  Kay,  Wallace. 


Fathers  of  the  State.  159 

one  hand,  and  the  agriculturists  on  the  other.  Such  is  not 
true;  but  it  is  correct  to  say  that  the  influence  of  the  former 
was  much  greater  than  that  of  the  latter,  and  further  that 
Missouri's  first  constitution  was  largely  the  work  of  the  former, 
even  though  the  lawyers  and  business  men  did  not  comprise 
one-half  of  the  delegates. 

Besides  the  occupations  named  that  were  represented  in 
the  convention,  there  were  three  others  which  were  each  fol- 
lowed by  two  delegates.  The  medical  profession  was  followed 
by  Dawson  and  Talbott;  the  civil  engineering,  by  Rector  and 
Sullivan;  and  the  teaching,  by  Findlay  and  McFerron.  Of 
these  six  men  McFerron  and  Findlay  were  the  most  active  in 
the  convention,  and  achieved  the  least  financial  success  in  life. 

Another  feature  of  this  body  that  attracts  attention  is 
its  cosmopolitan  appearance.  There  were  represented  in  the 
convention  seven  lines  of  descent.  The  English  race  claimed 
a  majority  of  the  delegates;  the  Welsh,  two;  the  Scotch,  at 
least  two;  the  Irish,  at  least  four;  the  Scotch-Irish,  which,  we 
understand,  is  generally  distinguished  by  genealogists  from 
the  Scotch,  at  least  four;  the  French,  two;  and  the  German, 
one.^°  Even  more  diversified  was  the  nativity  of  the  members 
of  the  convention.  The  slave-holding  commonwealths,  as  one 
would  expect,  were  the  birthplaces  of  a  majority  of  the  dele- 
gates. Contrary  to  popular  opinion,  Kentucky  did  not  lead 
in  this  respect;  to  Virginia  was  this  honor  given.  The  former 
furnished  eight  of  Missouri's  State  Founders;  the  latter,  thirteen. 
Standing  next  to  Virginia  and  Kentucky  was  Maryland  with 
four  delegates,  and,  what  is  equally  at  variance  with  accepted 
notions  on  this  point,  Pennsylvania  followed  with  three  dele- 
gates. The  place  of  birth  of  the  remaining  members  of  the 
convention  is  as  follows:  Tennessee,  then  part  of  North  Car- 
olina, two;  North  Carolina,  two;  upper  Louisiana,  while  under 
Spanish  rule,  two;  Indiana  Territory,  before  the  organization 
of  the   old    Northwest   Territory,    one;    New   York,    Vermont, 


">  Green  and  Jones,  Welsh;  Barton  and  Henry,  Scotch;  Hutchings,  McFerron. 
Ramsay,  and  Thomas,  Irish;  Cleaver,  Findlay,  McNair,  and  Talbott,  Scotch- 
Irish;  Chouteau  and  Pratte,  French;  Burckhartt,  German;  and  the  other  dele- 
gates, excepting  several  that  we  were  unable  to  trace,  English. 


160  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

South  Carolina,  Wales,  and  Ireland,  each  one.^^  It  Is  quite 
a  commentary  on  the  wane  of  the  French  influence  that  only 
two  delegates  were  of  French  blood.  Less  than  sixteen  years 
before  when  the  first  convention  was  held  in  upper  Louisiana, 
protesting  against  the  act  of  Congress  of  1804,  the  French 
representatives  were  in  the  majority;  and,  if  we  look  back  four 
years  further  to  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century,  we  see 
that  race  the  most  influential  west  of  the  Mississippi  River. 
We  recall  few  instances  in  history  where  an  enlightened,  peace- 
ful, and  fairly  prosperous  race,  has  ever  been  so  ignored  in  gov- 
ernmental affairs  in  such  a  short  time  by  any  other  means  than 
by  force. 

Closely  related  to  nativity  is  the  place  of  one's  rearing. 
If  in  considering  the  latter  we  include  the  places  of  residence 
in  which  the  delegates  had  lived  before  coming  to  what  is  now 
Missouri,  there  is  no  state  that  holds  as  prominent  a  position 
in  this  respect  as  was  met  with  under  our  discussion  of  places 
of  birth.  While  Virginia  was  the  mother  of  thirteen  delegates, 
she  had  the  exclusive  control  of  but  three  of  these  before  their 
settlement  in  Missouri.  Kentucky  was  the  single  home  and 
residence  of  only  six  delegates.  Five  members  of  the  con- 
vention had  been  reared  and  had  lived  in  Virginia  and  Ken- 
tucky; two  in  Virginia,  Kentucky  and  Tennessee;  one  in  Vir- 
ginia and  Georgia;  one  in  Virginia  and  Tennessee;  one  in  Vir- 
ginia and  Illinois  Territory;  one  in  Virginia  and  Indiana  Terri- 
tory; one  in  Kentucky  and  Indiana  Territory;  one  in  Kentucky 
and  Maryland;  one  in  Kentucky,  Maryland  and  Ohio;  one  in 
Kentucky   and    upper   Louisiana;   three   in   Tennessee;   two   in 


"  Those  born  in  Virginia  wore  Baber,  Bates,  CMark,  .).  (^ook.  N.  C^ook.  Evans, 
Hammond,  UutcliinKs,  IJIIard,  Ramsay,  Rector,  Ridilick,  and  Scott;  in  Ken- 
tucky, Boone.  Hii(!kner,  CMeaver,  Green,  Ray.  Reeves,  Sullivan,  and  Wallace; 
in  Maryland,  Burckhartt,  Dawson,  Talbott,  Thomas;  in  Pennsylvania.  Kindlay. 
McNalr,  and  Perry;  in  Tennessee,  Barton  and  Byrd;  in  North  Carolina.  Bet t is 
and  Brown;  in  upper  Louisiana,  Chouteau  and  Pratte;  in  Indiana  Territory. 
Dodge;  in  New  York,  Heath;  in  Vermont,  Emmons;  in  South  Carolina, 
Henry;  in  Ireland,  McKerron;  and  in  Wales,  ,lones.  Tlie  birtiiplace  of  Houts 
is  not  known.  The  Jackson  Herald,  .June  24.  1S2().  gives  the  birthplaces  of  the 
delegates  as  follows:  Virginia.  Ki;  Kentucky.  S;  l»ennsylvania.  1;  Maryland,  4; 
North  Carolina,  .i.  Missouri.  2;  Vermont.  1;  Delaware.  1;  Tennes.see.  I;  Ireland, 
1;  and  Wahvs,  1.  The  total  nurnl«>r  of  delegates  according  to  tliat  paper  is  forty- 
two,  which  is  not  accurate.  It  pos.sil)ly  included  the  secretary  of  tl)e  convi-ntion, 
but  this  would  not  correct  its  figures  on  this  point. 


Fathers  of  the  State.  161 

Maryland;  one  in  North  Carolina;  one  in  North  CaroHna  and 
South  Carolina;  three  in  Pennsylvania;  one  in  Vermont  and  New 
York;  one  in  New  York;  one  in  Ireland;  one  in  Wales,  England, 
Indiana  and  Illinois  Territories;  one  in  upper  Louisiana;  and  one 
in  upper  Louisian  and  Canada.'^-  On  the  basis  of  former  resi- 
dence and  former  friendships  thirty-six  of  the  delegates  naturally 
fall  into  five  groups.  The  largest  number  came  from  Mary- 
land, Virginia  and  Kentucky.  These  three  states,  closely 
related  in  history  by  the  ties  of  blood,  interest,  and  position, 
had  been  the  birthplace  and  home  of  seventeen  delegates.  The 
next  group  in  the  order  of  importance  was  that  from  Tennessee 
and  the  Carolinas.  Its  membership  included  eight  delegates, 
most  of  whom  came  from  eastern  Tennessee.  The  old  North- 
west Territory  group  was  composed  of  five  delegates,  who  came 
from  Ohio,  Indiana  Territory,  and  Illinois  Territory.  The 
Pennsylvania  group  and  the  upper  Louisiana  group  were  each 
composed  of  three  delegates.  Thus,  instead  of  there  having 
been  a  large  number  of  sources  of  the  delegates,  we  find  that  all 
the  members  of  the  convention  except  six  can  be  traced  to  five 


"  The  three  delegates  from  Virginia  and  the  year  of  their  immigration  to 
Missouri  were  Bates  (1814),  Evans  (1807).  Riddick  (1803):  from  Virginia  and 
Kentucky,  Boone  (1800),  Clark  (1817),  J.  Cook  (1815),  N.  Cook.  (1799),  Hutch- 
ings  (1800);  from  Virginia,  Kentucky,  and  Tennessee,  Baber  (1815),  Ramsay 
(1817) ;  from  Virginia  and  Georgia,  Hammond  (1804) ;  from  Virginia  and  Tennessee, 
Lillard  (1817);  from  Virginia  and  Illinois  Territory,  Rector  (1810);  from  Virginia 
and  Indiana  Territory,  Scott  (1804);  from  Kentucky,  Cleaver  (1816),  Green 
(1817),  Ray  (1818),  Reeves  (1819),  Sullivan  (at  least  as  early  as  1815).  Wallace 
(at  least  as  early  as  1818);  from  Kentucky  and  Indiana  Territory,  Buckner  (1818); 
from  Kentucky  and  Maryland,  Burckhartt  (about  1815  or  before);  from  Ken- 
tucky, Maryland,  and  Ohio,  Thomas  (1810);  from  Kentucky  and  upper  Louisiana, 
Dodge  (1796);  from  Tennessee,  Barton  (1809),  Brown  (1804).  Byrd  (1799);  from 
Maryland,  Dawson  (1800),  Talbott  (at  least  by  1815);  from  North  Carolina. 
Bettis  (1806);  from  North  Carolina  and  South  Carolina,  Henry  (1817);  from 
Pennsylvania,  Findlay  (1818),  McNair  (1804),  Perry  (1806);  from  Vermont  and 
New  York,  Emmons  (1807);  from  New  York,  Heath  (1808);  from  Ireland,  McFer- 
ron  (1802);  from  Wales,  England,  Indian  Territory  and  Illinois  Territory,  Jones 
(1810);  from  upper  Louisiana  and  Canada,  Pratte  (born  in  Ste.  Genevieve). 
Chouteau  was  born  in  St.  Louis.  The  birthplace  and  former  residence  of  Houts 
are  unknown,  also  the  date  of  his  arrival  in  Missouri.  The  dates  given  as  the 
years  of  the  arrivals  in  upper  Louisiana  of  the  delegates  are  in  some  cases  our 
approximations  of  the  e.xact  time.  We  were  in  several  instances  unable  to  ob- 
tain exact  information.  Each  date,  we  beUeve,  is,  however,  accurate  in  stating 
the  year  in  which  a  delegate  was  living  in  upper  Louisiana  or  Missouri  Territory. 
The  error,  if  any,  is  in  the  direction  of  an  understatement  rather  than  an  over- 
statement of  the  length  of  time  a  delegate  had  been  an  inhabitant  of  this  Terri- 
tory. 

M  S— 11 


162  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

common  sources.  We  think  this  is  important  in  an  understand- 
ing of  the  personnel  of  the  convention.  The  delegates  were 
isolated  from  each  other  neither  before  nor  after  their  immi- 
gration west  of  the  Mississippi  river.  Nor  were  they  strangers 
to  each  other  at  either  time.  They  had  met  in  the  market, 
had  been  companions  in  the  skirmish,  had  sat  side  by  side  in 
legislative  bodies,  had  known  each  other  as  friends  or  as  foes 
before  the  bar.  Some  were  related  by  the  bonds  of  marriage 
and  friendship,  others  by  the  ties  of  business  and  policy.  Al- 
though their  average  residence  in  upper  Louisiana  was  but  ten 
years,  excluding  Chouteau  and  Pratte,  who  were  born  in  that 
district,  and  Houts  of  whom  we  could  learn  very  little,  their 
acquaintanceships  stretch  back  into  the  eighteenth  century. 
And  when  they  met  to  frame  Missouri's  first  constitution  each 
knew  the  character  as  well  as  the  reputation  of  many  of  his 
colleagues. 

Some  of  the  delegates  were  members  of  the  same  religious 
denomination,  but  our  information  is  too  incomplete  in  this 
respect  to  insure  accurate  generalizations.  We  do  know,  how- 
ever, that  the  following  sects  and  religions  had  followers  in  the 
convention:  Methodist,  Baptist,  Presbyterian,  Episcopalian, 
and  Roman  Catholic.  Formal  religion  did  not  play  as  im- 
portant a  part  in  the  lives  of  the  men  and  women  of  that  day 
as  it  did  later.  We  do  not  believe  that  even  half  of  the  dele- 
gates were  members  of  any  church  at  this  time.  This  was 
partly  due,  in  the  case  of  some  of  the  delegates,  to  a  lack  of  in- 
terest in  this  subject,  but  was  more  probably  the  result  of  the  few, 
scattered  churches  and  ministers  in  Missouri  Territory.  In  many 
cases  we  are  told  the  religion  that  was  professed  by  a  delegate's 
parents,  who  had  lived  in  the  settled  states  east  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi River,  but  nothing  in  regard  to  the  rcHgion  of  the  dele- 
gate himself.  In  other  instances  we  have  record  of  the  delegate 
joining  some  religious  denomination  years  after  Missouri  had 
entered  the  Union.  There  was  also  a  number  of  delegates  who 
were  Masons.  Alexander  Buckner  had  been  the  first  Grand 
Master  of  the  Grand  Lodge  of  Indiana  Territory,  and  had 
organized  the  first  Masonic  Lodge  in  Missouri  Territory, 
"Unity  Lodge"  at   Jackson;    Benjamin    Emmons,    had    brought 


Fathers  of  the  State.  1G3 

the  first  charter  for  the  Masonic  Lodge  at  St.  Charles;  and 
Thomas  F.  Riddick,  who  together  with  Alexander  McNair, 
Thomas  H.  Benton,  Edward  and  Frederick  Bates,  William  G. 
Pettus  and  others  established  the  first  two  Masonic  Lodges  in 
St.  Louis,  was  the  first  Grand  Master  of  Missouri. 

Before  closing  our  treatment  of  the  private  lives  of  the 
delegates  we  will  make  a  few  statements  on  what  is  usually 
regarded  as  two  of  the  most  important  subjects  in  the  study 
of  biography, — education  and  economic  position.  The  educa- 
tional equipment  of  the  members  of  the  first  constitutional 
convention  of  Missouri  was  an  honor  and  an  asset  to  that  body. 
Some  of  the  delegates  had  received  little  schooling  but  most 
of  these  had  corrected  this  by  a  close  application  to  books. 
Only  seven  delegates,  however,  were  in  this  unfortunate  class 
of  self-educated  men.  Information  along  this  line  in  the  case 
of  seven  other  delegates  has  not  been  brought  to  light.  All 
the  remaining  twenty-six  delegates  had  received  good  educa- 
tions and  many  of  these,  e.  g.,  Jones,  Scott,  McNair,  Pratte, 
McFerron,  Barton,  Bates,  Buckner  and  others,  had  received 
exceptionally  fine  advantages  either  in  college  or  under  re- 
markably eminent  men.^^  The  most  highly  educated  man  in 
the  convention,  one  whom  we  can  correctly  style  learned,  was 
John  Rice  Jones.  This  high  educational  standard  of  the  con- 
vention was  naturally  reflected  in  the  work  of  that  body.  The 
constitution  that  it  framed  has  throughout  not  only  a  clear, 
correct  style  but  also,  which  is  more  important,  it  reveals  itself 
as  the  work  of  men  who  were  liberal  enough  to  compromise.  A 
constitution  of  this  character  is  usually  insured  a  longer  life 
than  one  framed  by  a  body  of  illiberal  even  though  powerful 
men. 

Another  element  of  strength  in  the  convention  was  the 
economic  stability  of  most  of  its  members.  All  except  four 
of  the  delegates  either  enjoyed  large  incomes  from  their  profession 
and  business,  or  were  possessed  of  considerable  property,  prin- 
cipally  in  land.     Even   these   four,   whom  we  have  excepted, 


"  Baber,  Chouteau,  Clark,  Dodge,  Hutchings,  Ramsay,  and  Wallace  had 
received  little  schooling  or  were  self-educated.  We  could  not  obtain  information 
in  this  line  relating  to  Brown,  Burckhartt,  Byrd,  Cleaver,  N.  Cook.  Lillard,  Sul- 
livan, and  Perry. 


164  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

were  not  penniless,  but  were  in  only  fair  circumstances  com- 
pared to  the  other  delegates.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that 
two  of  these  four  delegates  were  the  only  school  teachers  in  the 
convention,  which  perhaps  explains  their  economic  situation; 
one  was  a  politician,  an  even  less  lucrative  office  then  than  now; 
and  one  was  a  small  business  man  who  soon  developed  into  a 
politician  and  found  more  wealth  in  holding  public  office  than 
in  selling  groceries.^^  Fourteen  of  the  delegates  were  among 
the  wealthiest  men  in  the  territory,  and  two  of  these,  Jones  and 
Pratte,  probably  had  few  if  any  equals  in  this  respect. ^^  The 
lawyers  and  surveyors  in  the  Convention  had  large  incomes 
as  their  services  were  of  a  high  grade  and  were  well  remunerated. 
The  business  class  in  the  convention  was  also  fortunate  in  this 
respect,  which  was  due  to  the  large  profits  that  the  successful 
trader  and  merchant  made  on  his  furs  and  wares,  and  to  the 
immense  gains  that  accrued  to  a  progressive  mine  operator. 
The  agricultural  class  did  not,  perhaps,  enjoy  so  large  a  net 
income  as  either  of  the  three  classes  named,  but  in  property  it 
usually  surpassed  them.  Considering  the  low  average  age  of 
the  delegates,  it  is  surprising  that  so  many  were  men  of  means, 
and  most  of  them  were  also  self-made  men.  The  average  age 
of  these  delegates  was  forty-one  years.  Only  four  were  sixty 
years  old  or  over — Hammond,  who  was  sixty-three  years; 
Henry,  eighty-four  years;  Jones,  sixty-one  years;  and  Lillard, 
sixty  years.  The  remaining  thirty-seven  delegates  ranged  in 
age  between  thirty-one  and  fifty-nine  years  except  five  or  six 
who  were  thirty  years  or  younger, — Baber,  Bates,  Clark,  J. 
Cook,  Houts  (?),  and  Green.  Today  it  would  be  almost  im- 
possible to  elect  in  any  state  forty-one  of  the  leading  men  of 
that  commonwealth  whose  average  age  is  as  low  and  whose 
economic  position  is  as  high  as  were  the  men  who  framed  Mis- 


"  McFerron  and  Findlay  were  teachers;  Clark,  a  politician;  and  Baber  a 
country  mercliant.  Ual)or  later  held  several  public  oJlloes  and  for  nearly  Miirty 
years  was  connected  witli  tiie  state  auditor's  department.  He  became  wealthy; 
and  the  story  is  told  that  at  times  he  would  light  his  cigar  with  paper  currency 
to  show  in  what  slight  regard  he  held  money. 

"  The  fourteen  delegates  who  were  wealthy  were  Boone,  Brown,  Byrd, 
Chouteau,  N.  Cook,  Dodge,  Hammond.  Henry,  Lillard,  Perry,  Ramsay,  and 
Riddick.  Dodge  had,  liowever,  lost  much  of  his  wealtli,  but  later  recovered  it 
in    Wisconsin   Territory. 


Fathers  of  the  State.  165 

souri's  first  constitution.  The  reason  for  such  a  difference 
existing  is  not  slow  in  presenting  itself.  In  the  first  place, 
never  in  the  history  of  this  nation,  not  even  excepting  the  case 
of  California,  has  such  a  wealth  of  natural  resources  and  fertile 
soil  been  thrown  open  to  settlement  and  exploitation  as  upper 
Louisiana  offered  the  American  settler  from  1790  to  1820. 
Therefore  the  fearless,  shrewd,  and  energetic  young  men  amassed 
fortunes  in  a  decade  or  two.  In  the  second  place,  the  absence 
of  specialization  permitted  men  to  enter  active  life  earlier.  And 
even  where  special  training  and  study  were  required  as  in  the 
case  of  law  and  engineering,  a  year  or  two  of  application  was 
sufficient  to  enable  one  to  be  admitted  to  active  work  at  the 
bar  or  in  the  field.  The  unlimited  opportunities  that  this  rich 
territory  offered  and  the  comparative  absence  of  the  specialist 
were,  we  believe,  the  main  reasons  for  the  delegates  averaging 
low  in  age  and  high  in  wealth.  We  would  not  be  understood 
as  stating  that  a  wealthy  class  framed  Missouri's  first  consti- 
tution, for  this  is  not  true.  The  delegates  were  all  men  of  more 
or  less  property  and  some  were  very  wealthy,  but  they  were 
essentially  representatives  of  the  people  both  by  virtue  of  elec- 
tion and  even  more  truly  by  reason  of  birth,  upbringing  and 
industry. 


CHAPTER  VI . 

LABORS  OF  THE  CONVENTION. 

On  June  12th,  1820,  in  accordance  with  the  fourth  section 
of  the  Missouri  Enabling  Act  of  March  6,  1820,  there  assembled 
in  St.  Louis  the  delegates  that  had  been  elected  to  Missouri's 
first  constitutional  convention.^  From  that  date  to  July  19th, 
a  period  of  thirty-eight  days,  these  constitution  framers  met 
in  daily  session,  except  on  the  five  Sundays  intervening  and  on 
the  Fourth  of  July.  The  convention  thus  accomplished  its 
purpose  and  completed  its  labors  in  thirty-two  days,  or  in  less 
than  one-half  the  time  necessary  for  a  regular  session  of  a  state 
legislature.^  The  assembling  place  of  the  convention  was  in 
the  dining  room  of  Bennett's  "Mansion  House  Hotel,"  ^  and  the 
thirty-eight  delegates  that  were  present  on  the  first  day,  having 
produced  their  credentials,  were  sworn,  and  took  their  seats.** 


•  Journal,  p.  3.  Throughout  this  and  the  succeeding  chapter  foot-note 
references  to  the  Journal  of  the  convention  will  be  indicated  by  "J." 

»  On  thirteen  days  the  convention  assembled  at  9  A.  M.,  on  one  day  at  10 
A.  M.,  and  on  the  last  day  at  12  A.  M.  On  three  days  the  Journal  does  not  give 
the  hour  of  meeting.  The  convention  also  assembled  in  the  afternoon.  See 
Mo.   IntelL,  July   1,   1820. 

»  This  building  was  erected  in  1816  by  Gen.  Wm.  V.  Rector,  United  States 
Surveyor-General  for  Illinois  and  Missouri,  for  his  office  and  residence,  and  was 
situated  on  the  north-east  corner  of  Third  and  Vine  streets.  In  1819  it  was  en- 
larged to  serve  as  a  hotel  for  Wm.  Bennett,  who  opened  house  during  the  summer 
of  that  year.  From  a  fine  cut  of  the  old  Mansion  House  in  Billon,  op.  cit.,  p. 
397,  it  appears  to  have  been  a  large,  three-story  brick  structure.  For  many 
years  it  was  used  as  a  hotel  and  during  that  time  was  the  scone  of  many  inter- 
esting and  noteworthy  incidents.  Theatrical  companies  performed  in  the  large 
dining  room,  and  during  the  early  State  period  it  was  the  principal  ball-room  of 
St.  Louis.  Later  it  was  called  the  "Denver  House"  and  was  sometimes  spcken 
of  as  the  "City  Hotel."  Between  1880  and  1888  it  was  removed  to  make  way 
for  a  largo  business  house.  Its  site  would  now  be  at  tlie  north-east  corner  of 
Third  and  E  streets.  (Mo.  IntelL.  June  24,  1820:  Billon,  op.  cit..  pp.  UXi.  397f; 
Darby,  Recollections,  p.  28;  Houck,  op.  cit..  III.  249,  250. 

♦J.,  p.  3.  Dodge  appeared  on  June  13;  Findlay  on  June  15;  and  Scott,  on 
Juno  10.  (Ibid.,  pp.  .5,  9,  10.)  The  following  were  also  admitted  to  a  seat  within 
the  hall  of  the  convention:  the  governor,  secretary,  and  judges  of  the  sui)erior 
and  circuit  courts  of  Missouri  Territory  (Ibid.,  p.  12);  Mr.  Monrot>.  brotlier  of 
and  former  private  secretary  to  the  President  of  the  lTnite<l  States;  Mr.  Strother, 
a  former  member  of  Congress  (idem.);  and  Nathaniel  B.  Tucker,  a  former  judge 
of  the  circuit  court   (ibid.,   p.  23.).     The  proceedings  of  the  convention  appear 

(100) 


"MANSION    HOUSE"  HOTKI. 

Where  the  First  Constitutional  Convention  of  Missouri  met.       Courtesy  of 
Hon.  Cornelius  Roach. 


THK  -XHSSOl  Rl  HOTKI." 
Where  the  First  State  Legislature  of  Missouri  met.       Courtesy  of  Hon.  Cornelius  Roach. 


72S34  -10(i 


Labors  of  the  Convention.  167 

The  Journal  of  the  convention  does  not  record  any  tem- 
porary organization,  but  other  accounts  of  the  proceedings  of 
that  body  reveal  the  election  of  Samuel  Hammond  and  Thomas 
F.  Riddick,  both  delegates,  as  president  and  secretary  pro 
tempore.^  Final  organization  was  then  effected  by  the  election 
of  a  permanent  president,  a  secretary  and  a  door-keeper.  David 
Barton  was  chosen  to  the  former  ofhce  by  a  large  majority  vote; 
William  G.  Pettus  was  elected  secretary;  and  George  W.  Fer- 
guson, door-keeper.^ 

Immediately  following  the  permanent  organization  of  the 
convention,  Judge  Thomas  submitted  a  resolution,  that  was 
adopted,  which  required  each  delegate  to  take  an  oath  before 
some  magistrate  of  the  Territory  to  support  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  and  also  an  oath  to  faithfully  discharge 
the  duties  of  his  office.'^  The  oaths  having  been  administered 
by  the  Hon.  Silas  Bent,  a  judge  of  the  superior  court,  a  resolu- 
tion was  submitted  by  John  D.  Cook,  of  Ste,  Genevieve,  which 
stated  that  it  was  then  expedient  to  form  a  constitution  and 
state  government  for  the  people  of  Missouri  Territory  within 
the  boundaries  set  forth  in  the  enabling  act  of  Congress.^  This 
very  important  resolution  was  unanimously  adopted  by  the 
convention.  Considering  the  strong  frontier  sentiment  that 
up  to  May,  1820,  had  favored  a  new  election  and  a  fairer  ap- 
portionment of  delegates,  this  vote  is  remarkable.  The  Boone's 
Lick  people  had  been  protesting  for  months  against  the  small 
number  of  representatives  apportioned  their  and  the  Salt 
River  districts,  and  they  had  persistently  advocated  a  new 
election  of  delegates  and  a  new  convention  based  on  a  more 


to  have  been  of  a  semi-secret  nature;  the  public  was  excluded  from  the  sessions 
but  some  of  the  delegates  kept  their  constituents  informed  of  the  general  business 
transacted. 

^Jackson  Herald,  June  24,  1820;  Scharf,  op.  cit.,  I.  564f. 

•  J.,  pp.  3f .  The  voting  was  by  ballot  and  resulted  as  follows :  for  president — 
David  Barton,  28  votes,  Richard  S.  Thomas,  6,  John  Rice  Jones,  3;  for  secretary — 
William  G.  Pettus,  21  votes,  Archibald  Gamble,  12,  Thompson  Douglass,  3, 
Joseph  v.  Gamier,  2;  and  for  door-keeper — George  W.  Ferguson,  35  votes,  Ed- 
ward Horrocks,  2.  None  of  the  candidates  for  secretary  or  door-keeper  was 
a  delegate. 

^  Ibid.,  p.  4.  Cf.  Jameson,  Const.  Convs.,  pp.  280ff.  This  was  the  first 
resolution  recorded  in  the  Journal  and  was  submitted  on  June  12th. 

*IMd.,   p.   4. 


168  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

just  basis  of  representation.^  It  speaks  well  for  the  wisdom 
and  honor  of  these  western  and  northern  men  that,  although 
they  could  have  opposed  this  measure  with  much  justice  on 
their  side,  they  choose  to  yield  their  cause  in  behalf  of  the  com- 
mon welfare  of  the  people. ^^ 

Having  decided  to  form  a  constitution,  the  convention  at 
once  began  its  labors.  This  work  was  accomplished  by  com- 
mittees, which  reported  to  the  convention,  and  divides  itself 
into  legislative  and  administrative  acts.  The  former  activity 
is  the  more  important,  but  the  latter  is  also  significant  and  in- 
teresting. We  shall  first  consider  the  administrative  and  rou- 
tine labors  of  the  convention. 

On  the  first  day  of  the  convention  a  committee  was  ap- 
pointed to  draft  rules  for  the  government  of  that  body.^^  On 
the  following  day  this  committee  submitted  a  short  report, 
consisting  of  twenty-one  sections  and  containing  about  nine 
hundred  words,  which  was  divided  into  four  parts,  "The  Duties 
Of  The  President,"  "Of  Decorum  In  Debate,"  "Duties  Of 
The  Secretary,"  and  "Duties  Of  The  Door-Keeper."  This 
report  was  adopted  by  the  convention  without  debate  or  op- 
position.^^  Brevity,  courtesy  and  common  sense,  are  its  dis- 
tinguishing  features. ^^     The   President   of   the   convention   was 


»  C/.  supra,  chapter  11;  Mo.  Intell.,  June  24.  1820. 

•"The  action  of  the  Missouri  convention  on  this  point  presents  a  striking 
contrast  to  that  of  the  Louisiana  constitutional  convention  of  1811.  The  latter 
met  on  November  4,  1811.  and  after  electing  a  temporary  president,  being  unable 
to  effect  a  permanent  organization,  adjourned  to  the  18th  instant.  On  re- 
assembling and  after  the  election  of  permanent  officers,  the  great  question  of 
"State  or  no  State?"  commanded  the  attention  of  all  the  delegates.  Some  favored 
a  State,  others  opposed  it.  One  thought  that  the  people  were  not  instructed  in 
the  principles  of  freedom.  Some  of  the  newspaper  writers  in  that  Territory 
declared  that  the  doctrines  of  liberty  and  equality  were  "heresy"  and  "theoretical 
stuff,"  and  tJiat  property  should  be  the  basis  for  granting  the  right  of  suffrage. 
On  taking  tJie  vote  on  this  (juestion,  thirty-flve  delegates  favored  a  State,  seven 
opposed  it.      (Fortier,  Address,  in  Pub.  of  La.  Hist,  iioc,  VI.  40f. 

>'  J.,  p.  4.  Thomas,  Emmons,  Jones,  Cook  of  Madison  and  Riddlck  com- 
posed this  committee.  Two  of  the.se  were  lawyers;  two,  business  men;  and  one. 
a  landowner,  was  a  brother  of  a  lawyer. 

'*  Ibid.,  pp.  aft.     Fifty  copies  were  ordered  printed. 

'•  A  comparison  of  these  ruh^s  with  tliose  governing  the  United  States  House 
of  Representatives  at  that  time  shows  that  (lie  former  are  simply  an  epitome 
of  tho.se  ess(!nthil  features  of  the  latter  that  are  applicable  to  a  convention.  In 
many  sections  the  language  of  the  two  are  Identical  except  that  In  the  place  of 
the  words  "Hous(n"  ".Speaker"  and  "Clerk,"   which  appear  In  the  former,   the 


Labors  of  the  Convention.  169 

given  the  great  power  of  appointing  all  committees,  and  at  no 
time  during  the  session  of  that  body  was  this  rule  changed. 
As  the  presiding  officer,  Barton  seems  to  have  given  satisfaction 
to  all  the  delegates;  on  the  last  day  of  the  convention  a  resolu- 
tion was  unanimously  adopted  tendering  him  the  thanks  of 
the  members  of  that  body  for  the  able  and  faithful  discharge 
of  his  duty  as  president.  A  similar  resolution  of  thanks  was 
at  the  same  time  passed  regarding  the  work  of  Pettus  for  the 
faithful  and  correct  manner  in  which  he  had  served  as  secretary.^'* 
A  resolution  was  then  adopted  directing  that  the  secretary 
make  up  the  Journal  of  the  convention  under  the  direction  of 
the  president. ^^  This  resolution  brings  to  our  attention  what 
we  regard  as  one  of  the  most  serious  criticisms  that  can  be 
urged  against  the  convention  and  its  officers.  We  advance 
this  criticism  not  only  for  the  sake  of  historical  accuracy  but, 
we  believe,  "The  world's  memory  must  be  kept  alive  or  we 
shall  never  see  an  end  of  its  old  mistakes."  ^^ 

The  minutes  recorded  of  the  proceedings  of  a  legislative 
body,  and  especially  of  a  constitutional  convention,  can  never 
be  too  detailed.  The  very  interpretation  of  a  phrase  or  a 
clause  in  a  constitution  frequently  involves  a  painstaking  study 
of  those  debates  that  were  held  over  it  by  its  framers.  Not 
only  to  the  historian,  the  lawyer,  the  judge,  and  to  all  posterity, 
is  such  a  detailed  account  important,  but  it  is  equally  valuable 
in  enabling  contemporaries  and  the  people  at  large  to  pass 
unbiased  judgment  on  the  acts  of  those  men  whom  they  have 
elected  to  so  important  a  trust.     The  proceedings  of  all  de- 


words  "Convention,"  "President"  and  "Secretary,"  are  respectively  substituted 
in  the  latter.  Cf.  Hinds,  Rules  of  the  House  of  Rep.  61st  Cong.,  pp.  303-474, 
(Govt.  Prtg.   Office,  Washington,   1910.) 

i««7.,  p.  48.  It  is  reported  that  Pettus  worked  all  night  of  the  18th  of  July, 
copying  on  parchment  the  enrolled  constitution.  From  the  minutes  of  the 
Journal,  however,  it  seems  that  Pettus  had  at  least  two  nights  and  one  day  to 
do  this  work.  (C/.  J.,  p.  46f.)  It  is  probable  that  other  duties  prevented  him 
from  accomplishing  this  until  the  last  minute.  Findlay,  chairman  of  the  enroll- 
ment committee,  in  reporting  to  the  convention  the  result  of  his  examination  of 
Pettus'  work,  said  that  never  in  his  long  experience  as  a  printer  had  he  seen  such 
beautiful  and  accurate  copying,  that  there  was  not  an  interlineation  or  mispelled 
word,  and  that  not  a  "t"  was  uncrossed  or  an  "i"  undotted,  throughout  the 
manuscript.      (Scharf,  op.  cit.,  I.  563f;  Houck,  op.  cit..  III.  249f.  M.  5.) 

»«J.,   p.   48. 

i«  Reported  from  speech  of  President  Woodrow  Wilson. 


170  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

liberative  bodies  and,  wherever  politic,  of  administrative 
boards,  should  be  recorded  in  the  clearest  and  most  minute 
detail.  The  cost  of  printing  and  clerk  hire  is  too  childish  an 
objection  to  deserve  consideration. 

Brevity,  condensation  and  omission  of  detail,  is  in  itself 
one  of  the  most  essential  characteristics  of  a  strong,  enduring 
and  well-balanced  constitution;  this  quality  is,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  most  vital  of  all  defects  in  any  journal  that  purports 
to  record  the  complete  history  of  how  a  constitution  was  framed. 
The  Missouri  constitution  of  1820  is  commendable  in  covering 
only  eighteen  and  a  half  printed  octavo  pages;  the  journal  of 
the  Missouri  constitutional  convention  of  1820  is  ridiculously 
defective  in  being  a  pamphlet  of  forty-eight  printed  pages,  of 
which  only  thirty-four  contain  information  on  the  constitution.^^ 
From  an  analysis  of  the  newspaper  reports  of  this  convention 
we  are  well  within  the  bounds  of  moderation  in  stating  that 
the  four  contests  in  that  body  over  the  questions  of  salaries  for 
state  officers,  of  the  basis  of  representation  in  the  state  senate, 
of  the  location  of  the  permanent  seat  of  the  state  government, 
and  of  the  state  bank,  alone,  could  not  have  been  fully  described 
in  a  journal  of  less  than  three  hundred  pages.  Fundamental 
as  is  this  defect  of  brevity  in  the  record  that  was  kept  of  Mis- 
souri's first  constitutional  convention,  the  Journal  would  still 
be  acceptable  if  it  possessed  the  merits  of  clearness  and  ac- 
curacy. But  a  hasty  examination  shows  it  is  lacking  in  the 
former  quality,  and  a  careful  study  compromises  it  in  the 
latter.^8 

The  JournaVs  account  of  the  convention's  printing  con- 
tracts is  significantly  illustrative  of  these  defects,  and,  as  those 
contracts  were  purely  administrative  acts,  a  discussion  of 
them  is  appropriate  here.     The  convention's  printing  was  of 


"  The  St.  Louis  edition  of  1820  of  the  constitution  is  a  small  size  pamphlet, 
three  and  a  half  by  five  and  three-fourths  inches,  and  contains  forty  pam>s,  of 
which  thirty  are  devoted  to  the  constitution;  the  Wasliington  edition,  printed 
the  same  year,  is  a  full  size  octavo  pamphlet  and  contains  twenty-live  panes,  of 
which  eiKhteen  and  a  half  are  devoted  to  tlie  constitution. 

••Our  criticism  of  brevity  and  obscurity  is  not  confined  to  the  Journal  of 
this  convention;  it  is  applicable  to  tiic;  Journal  of  the  Illinois  constitutional  con- 
vention of  1«1K.  (Cy.  same  as  reprinted  in  the  Journal  of  the  111.  iStatc  Hist. 
Soc.  VI.  No.  3.) 


Labors  of  the  Convention,  171 

two  kinds,  miscellaneous  job  work  and  the  printing  of  the 
constitution  and  journal.  All  bids  were  to  be  made  to  a 
committee,  composed  of  Greene,  Rector  and  Boone;  final 
decision  on  same  was  retained  by  the  convention. ^^  This 
committee  first  considered  bids  for  the  job  work,  and  having 
requested  and  received  one  from  Henry  and  Company  of  St. 
Louis  recommended  the  acceptance  of  that  firm's  offer.  The 
convention  accordingly  gave  the  contract  to  Henry  and  Com- 
pany .^^  This  far  the  Journal  is  clear  and  perhaps  accurate, 
although  there  were  probably  some  discussion  and  an  aye  and 
and  nay  vote  taken  on  this  matter,  both  of  which  the  Journal 
fails  to  record.  A  criticism  does,  however,  plainly  rest  against 
the  printing  committee  in  not  having  also  asked  for  a  bid  from 
the  rival  printing  firm  in  St.  Louis,  or  if  it  did  this,  in  not  having 
presented  two  bids — for  certainly  the  old,  established  firm  of 
Joseph  Charless'  could  and  would  have  competed  with  that  of 
Henry  and  Benton's.^^ 

On  the  day  following  the  letting  of  the  job  work,  the  con- 
vention, after  much  discussion,  resolved  by  a  very  close  division 
vote  to  have  printed  twelve  hundred  copies  of  the  constitution 
and  of  the  journal.  This  resolution  was  bitterly  contested  and 
thoroughly  aroused  the  convention,  but  the  Journal  is  sin- 
gularly silent  on  this  phase  of  the  afifair.^^  Two  days  later,  on 
Saturday,  June  17,  according  to  the  Journal,  the  printing 
committee  submitted  to  the  convention  propositions  of  Henry 
and  Company  for  printing  twelve  hundred  copies  of  the  con- 
stitution and  of  the  journal,  and  also  submitted  a  resolution 
accepting  these  propositions.     The  Journal  then  briefly  states 


»» J.,  p.  5. 

»« Ibid.,  pp.  7f. 

"  Henry  and  Co.  printed  the  St.  Louis  Enquirer  and  was  controlled  by  Isaac 
N.  Henry  and  Thomas  H.  Benton.  Joseph  Charless,  editor  and  owner  of  the 
Missouri  Gazette,  was  hated  by  many  of  the  delegates  and  especially  by  Green 
and  other  active  politicians  of  Missouri. 

"  See  Journal,  p.  9,  for  its  account  of  the  proceedings  on  June  loth.  Our 
account  is  taken  from  a  letter  of  the  St.  Louis  correspondent  of  the  Alissouri 
Intelligencer.  {Mo.  Intell.,  June  24,  1820.)  Green,  Cook  of  Ste.  Genevieve,  and 
Findlay  favored  the  resolution;  Thomas  wanted  only  300  copies  printed;  and 
Heath  opposed  the  resolution.  The  writer  says  that  some  excitement,  irregular 
discussion,  and  long  speeches  followed  the  introduction  of  the  resolution.  Two 
important  votes  were  taken  and  each  showed  20  ayes  and  18  nays. 


172  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

that,  after  a  motion  to  table  this  resolution  had  been  negatived, 
the  resolution  itself  was  adopted.^^  Green,  chairman  of  the 
printing  committee,  in  a  letter  "To  The  Voters  Of  Howard 
County"  dated  two  months  later,  said  that  his  committee  had 
also  submitted  the  propositions  to  Charless  for  printing,  and 
that  the  convention  had  almost  unanimously  accepted  those 
of  Henry  and  Company.^'*  Either  the  Journal  is  inaccurate 
or  Green  is  mistaken;  we  are  inclined  to  think  that  both  trimmed. 
On  the  following  Monday,  June  19,  according  to  the  Journal, 
Charless  submitted  proposals  for  printing  the  constitution  and 
the  journal,  but  on  motion  of  Findlay  these  were  ordered  to  be 
laid  on  the  table.^^  Charless'  bids  were  just  one-fifth  those  of 
Henry  and  Company;  this  interesting  bit  of  information  is  not, 
however,  given  in  the  Journal;  we  obtained  it  from  the  files  of 
the  Missouri  Gazette,  August  2  and  9,  and  of  the  Missouri  In- 
telligencer,   July    1    and    August    19.^^     To    maintain    that    the 


^^  Journal,  p.   10.     Ramsay  made  the  motion  to  table  the  resolution. 

^*Mo.   IntelL,  August   19.    1820. 

"J.,  p.    11. 

"  The  bid  of  Henry  and  Company  for  printing  twelve  hundred  copies  of  the 
constitution  was  S  100.00;  that  of  Charless,  $20.00.  The  cost  of  printing  twelve 
hundred  copies  of  the  journal  was  to  be  done  at  the  same  rate,  in  proportion  to 
the  extent  of  the  work.  The  St.  Louis  correspondent  of  the  Mo.  IntelL,  July  1. 
1820,  states  that  Charless'  bid  was  presented  June  19,  and  that  it  was  placed 
low,  at  1/5  a  fair  price,  in  order  to  raise  "a  false  clamour  among  the  people." 
He  also  states  that  the  printing  contract  had  been  let  on  June  17.  and  that  Charless, 
knowing  this,  sought  to  embaress  the  convention  without  running  any  risk  of 
being  himself  embarressed.  Charless  replied  to  this  correspondent  in  two  edito- 
rials which  appeared  in  the  Mo.  Gazette,  Aug.  2  and  9.  1820.  He  stated  that  the 
printing  committee  had  never  requested  bids  from  him;  that  he  had  not  known 
of  the  appointment  of  this  committee  until  after  it  had  presented  the  proposals 
of  Henry  and  Co. ;  that  wlien  his  proposals  were  handed  to  the  committee  by 
Boone,  who  had  received  them  from  some  member.  Green  was  displeased  and  wished 
to  know  who  had  informed  old  Charless;  that  at  that  time  the  contract  had  not 
yet  been  made  and  was  still  under  discussion;  that  notwithstanding  the  fact  tha« 
his  bid  was  only  one-llfth  that  of  Henry  and  Co.,  the  contract  was  awarded  the 
latter,  on  the  recommendation  of  the  committee;  and  that  he  had  liis  hid  again 
presented  to  the  convention  by  a  member,  but  it  was  tabled.  Charless  also 
explained  how  he  (^ould  afford  to  print  twelve  hundred  copies  of  the  constitution 
for  $20.00  and  still  niak(r  a  profit;  all  the  newspapers  would  print  the  constitution, 
hence  no  new  labor  of  composition  would  be  required  to  print  it  for  tlie  convention; 
the  only  extra  expense  in  printing  twelve  liundred  copies  would  be  the  following — 
paper,  $G.2.'>,  press  work,  $4.00.  folding,  stitching,  covering,  and  coloring,  one 
day  for  a  boy.  $1..'>0,  and  colored  paper  for  covering.  $1.2.'')  all  ()r  which  would 
amount  to  $i:i.()0,  thus  loaving  a  profit  of  $7.00  on  his  .SJO.OO  bid.  Ciiarle.ss 
further  accu.sed  (Irccn  and  the  convention  of  giving  Henry  and  Co.  at  least  $1,.')00 
for  all  the  printing,  which  he,  Charless,  would  gladly  have  done  for  $;U)0.00.      Ho 


Labors  of  the  Convention.  173 

matter  is  unimportant  and  did  not  warrant  recording,  is  to  lay 
the  Journal  open  to  the  severe  criticism  of  having  covered  one 
and  one-half  pages  of  its  scanty  forty-eight  pages  with  extraneous 
minutes  on  the  printing  by  Henry  and  Company.  We  cannot, 
however,  see  how  the  S20.00  bid  of  Charless  was  in  any  respect 
less  important  than  the  .$100.00  bid  of  Henry  and  Company .^^ 


concluded  his  arraignment  with  these  biting  words:  "It  is  part  of  the  question 
of  high  salaries — no  one  shall  do  any  thing  for  the  public  except  he  will  take  three 
times  as  much  as  he  ought — No  one  shall  serve  the  public  unless  he  plucks  the  goose 
as  much  as  possible." 

Green  in  his  race  for  representative  from  Howard  county  in  1820,  was  at- 
tacked by  his  enemies  for  this  little  piece  of  politics  of  his  at  St.  Louis,  and  he 
must  have  feared  the  effect  of  the  charges.  For  on  August  19th,  there  appears 
In  the  Mo.  Intell.  a  letter  of  his  addressed  "To  The  Voters  Of  Howard  County," 
which  attempts  to  reply  to  the  statements  of  Charless  and  others.  A  hasty 
examination  of  this  letter  clears  both  Green  and  the  Convention  of  all  criticisms 
regarding  the  convention's  printing  and  further  places  Charless  in  the  hole  for 
misstatements  and  for  playing  low  politics:  a  careful  analysis  of  this  epistle,  a 
comparison  with  it  of  the  Journal,  of  the  editorials  of  Charless,  and  of  the  writings 
of  the  St.  Louis  correspondent  of  the  Mo.  Intell.,  and  an  appreciation  of  the  fact 
that  it  was  an  attempt  to  answer  certain  direct  and  specific  charges,  convict 
Green,  some  members  of  the  convention,  and  the  Journal  of  wilful  and  conscious 
irregularities  in  this  matter.  The  voters  of  Howard  county  also  possibly  shared 
this  latter  conclusion  as  Green  was  very  decisively  defeated  at  the  August  election. 

"  The  convention  later  decided  that  the  constitution  be  translated  into  the 
French  language,  and  that  300  copies  thereof  be  distributed  for  the  use  of  the 
French  inhabitants,  Pratte,  Chouteau,  and  Riddick  were  appointed  to  super- 
vise this  work.      (Journal,  p.  46.) 

It  was  first  decided  to  dispose  of  the  1,200  printed  copies  of  the  constitution 
that  were  in  English  as  follows:  380  copies  were  to  be  deposited  in  the  archives 
of  the  state,  subject  to  the  future  disposition  of  the  legislature;  and  20  copies 
were  to  be  given  to  each  delegate,  for  the  use  of  his  constituents.  (Mo.  Intell., 
Jime  24,  1820.)  This  was  changed  by  a  resolution,  introduced  by  Bates,  which 
provided  that  the  President  of  the  United  States,  the  respective  heads  of  the 
departments  of  the  Federal  Government,  the  chief  executive  of  each  state  and 
territory,  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives  and  the  President  of  the 
Senate  of  Congress,  each  receive  one  copy  of  the  constitution,  that  100  copies  of 
the  constitution  and  the  journal  be  deposited  in  the  oflSce  of  the  Secretary  of 
State  of  Missouri,  and  that  the  remaining  copies  of  both  be  distributed  among 
the  delegates.     (Journal,  p.  47.) 

We  have  seen  only  one  copy  of  the  original  edition  of  the  constitution  printed 
in  St.  Louis,  and  one  copy  that  was  printed  in  Washington  (1820).  These  are 
both  in  the  State  Hist.  Soc.  of  Mo.  We  have  never  seen  an  original  of  the  Journal 
and  in  our  work  used  a  photo-facsimile  reprint  made  in  1905  by  the  Statute  Law 
Book  Company,  Washington.  D.  C. 

The  final  superintendence  of  the  printing  of  the  constitution  was  placed  in 
the  hands  of  Findlay.  (Journal,  p.  47f.)  On  the  last  page  of  the  St.  Louis 
edition  of  the  constitution  is  found  the  certification  of  J.  S.  Findlay,  under  date 
of  St.  Louis,  Aug.  3,  1820,  declaring  that  the  constitution  and  "Ordinance"  as 
printed  agreed  with  the  original  roll.  On  the  last  page  of  the  Washington  edition 
is  found  a  similar  certification  by  David  Barton,  under  date  of  St.  Louis,  September 
27,    1820. 


174  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

The  JournaVs  record  of  the  printing  contracts  is  singular, 
but  its  account  of  the  resolution  that  provided  for  the  pay  of 
the  members  and  officers  of  the  convention,  is  unique.  The 
latter  subject,  although  not  considered  until  late  in  the  session, 
secured  the  attention  of  the  delegates  on  seven  days.^^  The 
Journal  contains  a  copy  of  the  original  resolution,  presented 
by  Ramsay,  on  this  matter;  gives  the  names  of  the  members  of 
the  committee  appointed  to  report  on  this  resolution ;  and  states 
that  the  committee  submitted  this  resolution  as  an  ordinance, 
thus  necessitating  honoring  it  with  the  signatures  of  the  president 
and  secretary  of  the  convention.  The  Journal  further  informs 
us  that  the  ordinance  after  two  readings  was  committed  to  the 
committee  of  the  whole,  was  then  reported  with  amendments  to 
the  convention,  was  agreed  to  and  ordered  to  be  engrossed  for 
a  third  reading,  was  again  agreed  to  by  a  division  vote, — the 
individual  ayes  and  nays  being  given — ,  was  reported  on  favor- 
ably by  the  committee  on  enrollments,  and  was  finally  signed 
by  Barton  and  Pettus.  We  would  logically  expect  that  since 
so  much  pains  was  taken  to  relate  the  complete  story  of  this 
simple  administrative  act,  the  Journal  would  inform  us  what 
its  core  was,  i.  e.,  what  pay  the  president,  the  secretary,  the 
doorkeeper,  and  the  delegates  received  per  diem  for  their  services 
and  what  mileage  was  allowed  them.  Or,  if  the  Journal  did 
not,  then  surely  this  ordinance,  which  was  raised  by  the  con- 
vention to  the  dignity  and  authority  of  a  fundamental  law, 
would  have  found  a  place  at  the  end  of  the  pamphlet  that 
contains  the  constitution,  the  ordinance  of  acceptance  of  the 
conditions  imposed  by  Congress,  and  the  certification  of  Findlay 
that  these  two  documents  had  been  correctly  printed.  But 
neither  pamphlet  contains  the  slightest  hint  of  the  compensa- 
tion received  by  the  officers  and  members  of  this  convention. 
We  do  not,  therefore,  conclude  that  the  compensation  ordinance 
necessarily  allowed  exorbitant  per  diem  salaries  and  mileage; 
we  do,  however,  criticise  the  Journal,  i.  e.,  Pettus  and  his  director. 
Barton,  for  recording  this  ordinance  so  minutely  and  finally 
letting  the  people  of  Missouri  hold  the  bag. 


^*  Journal,  pp.  30f..  3.'i,  38,  42ff..  Alt. 


Labors  of  the  Convention.  175 

This  ordinance  also  provided  for  other  expenses  of  the  con- 
vention.-^ It  is  impossible  to  ascertain  what  all  these  other 
expenditures  were,  but  it  is  certain  that  they  included  printing 
bills,  contingent  expenses  of  the  secretary,  and  furniture  and 
rent  accounts.  We  estimate  that  this  ordinance  carried  an 
appropriation  of  about  $8,800.00.^^  This  amount  represents 
practically  the  total  cost  to  the  people  of  Missouri  of  their 
first  constitutional  convention.^^  As  no  criticism  of  this  ex- 
pense is  met  with  in  the  newspapers  of  that  day,  we  may  con- 
clude that  the  inhabitants  of  the  new  State  were  willing  to  pay 
so  low  a  bill.  Compared  with  the  cost  of  even  the  first  session 
of  the  first  General  Assembly  of  Missouri,  it  was  a  very  small 
expenditure.  In  fact  Missourians  paid  about  three  times  as 
much  for  their  first  volume  of  session  laws  as  they  did  for  their 
first   constitution.^- 


«» Ibid.,  p.  48. 

»»  The  compensation  allowed  the  delegates  was  probably  no  higher  than 
that  given  to  the  members  of  the  first  state  General  Assembly  of  Missouri  at 
its  first  session,  since  both  the  convention  and  that  legislature  had  unlimited 
legal  power  over  this  subject.  (C/.  Mo.  Const.,  1820,  Schedule,  sec.  6.  The 
members  of  the  Missoiu-i  constitutional  convention  of  1845  and  1875  received 
the  same  compensation  as  was  allowed  members  of  the  legislature.  See  Laws 
of  Mo.,  12th  G.  A.,  1st  sess.,  pp.  26f.,  act  of  Feb.  27,  1843;  act  of  March  25,  1874, 
sec.  4,  in  Const,  of  Mo.  1865,  compiled  by  McGrath,  1875,  pp.  4Sff.,  bound  in 
"Missouri  Constitutions  1845-1909.")  The  latter  body  allowed  each  of  its  two 
presiding  officers  and  of  its  two  clerks  five  dollars  a  day,  and  each  member  of 
both  houses  four  dollars  a  day  and  mileage  at  the  rate  of  three  dollars  for  every 
twenty-five  miles  in  coming  to  and  retiu-ning  from  the  session.  It  consisted  of 
fourteen  senators  and  forty-three  representatives,  a  total  of  fifty-seven  members, 
was  in  working  session  about  two  and  a  fourth  times  as  long  as  the  convention, 
and  appropriated  twenty-five  thousand  dollars  for  salaries  and  mileage  of  its 
members  and  twelve  hundred  dollars  for  printing.  If  the  convention  allowed 
its  members  a  similar  per  diem  salary  and  the  same  rate  of  mileage,  then  these 
two  items  in  the  convention's  budget  amounted  to  approximately  SS.OOO.OO. 
The  printing  bill  of  the  convention  was,  we  believe,  about  S500.00.  (C/.,  the 
Journal,  pp.  8,  10  and  the  letter  of  Green  in  the  Mo.  Intel!.,  August  19,  1820. 
We  cannot  accept  Charless'  statement  that  the  total  printing  bill  would  be  about 
81,500.00;  according  to  contract,  it  could  not  have  been  over  S500.00.)  The  ex- 
pense for  furnitvu-e  was  possibly  SIOO.OO,  and  the  secretary's  contingent  bill  was 
S26.25  (Scharf,  op.  cit.,  I.  536).  The  rent  of  the  dining  hall  and  two  rooms  in 
Bennett's  Hotel  was  S30.00  a  week  or  about  $165.00  for  the  thirty-eight  days. 
(Journal,  pp.  4f.  The  two  rooms  were  probably  used  by  the  convention  as  com- 
mittee rooms.)  This  makes  a  total  expense  of  $8,791.25,  which,  we  believe,  is 
a  close  approximation. 

"  It  does  not,  however,  include  the  expense  incident  to  the  election  of  the 
delegates. 

'i  Laws  of  Mo.  1820,  1st  G.  A.,  1st  sess.,  chap.  17,  pp.  34f. ;  chap.  45,  pp.  82f. 

In  piu-suing  this  study  of  Missovu-i's  first  constitutional  convention  and  while 
examining  to  some  extent  the  other  constitutional  conventions  and  constitutions 


176  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

This  concludes  our  consideration  of  the  administrative 
and  miscellaneous  acts  of  the  convention.  The  few  that  have 
not  been  discussed  are  either  of  slight  interest  and  importance, 
or  their  purpose  is  not  clear .^^ 

We  shall  now  consider  the  legislative  work  of  the  con- 
vention. This  work  consisted  of  drafting  and  adopting  two 
organic  laws — an  ordinance  accepting  the  five  propositions 
and  the  two  provisions  that  were  set  forth  in  the  sixth  section 
of  Missouri's  Enabling  Act,  and  a  constitution,  which  governed 
the  people  of  this  state  for  nearly  forty-five  years.  Both 
became  binding  on  the  people  of  Missouri  through  the  mandate 
of  the  convention;  neither  was  ever  submitted  to  a  popular 
vote.  Contrary  to  current  opinion,  however,  and  even  to  the 
statements  of  some  scholars,  there  is,  we  believe,  no  obvious 
naturalness  or  necessary  conformity  to  the  spirit  of  the  times 


of  this  and  other  states,  we  have  frequently  been  confronted  with  questions  that 
involved  comparisons  of  constitutional  law  and  ordinary  or  session  law,  and  of 
constitutional  conventions  and  ordinary  legislative  bodies.  First  necessity  and 
finally  interest  have  directed  our  attention  to  this  phase  of  our  subject,  and  we 
hope  to  be  pardoned  for  the  following  extraneous  remarks:  Are  constitutions  more 
easily  framed  than  ordinary  laws?  If  so,  is  this  owing  to  the  abler  men  in  con- 
stitutional conventions;  to  the  absence  of  veto  and  constitutional  limitations, 
except  those  in  the  United  States  constitution;  to  the  single  house  plan  of  organ- 
ization; or  to  the  smaller  membership?  If  not,  why  does  it  take  less  time  to  draft 
constitutions  than  session  laws,  for  it  is  a  fact  that  Missouri's  first  constitutional 
convention  was  in  session  only  thirty-eight  days  of  which  only  thirty-two  were 
working  days;  that  this  State's  second  convention,  1845-1846,  met  fifty-eight  days, 
of  which  not  more  than  forty-eight  were  working  days;  and  that  the  last  con- 
vention, 1875,  met  eighty-nine  days,  of  which  only  seventy-six  were  working 
days?  Is  not  this  celerity  In  drafting  constitutions  due  to  the  same  factors  that 
serve  to  explain  the  simplicity  and  ease  of   framing    constitutions? 

"On  .June  19,  McFerron  submitted  a  resolution  providing  for  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  committee  to  draft  a  memorial  to  Congress  in  behalf  of  certain  persons 
claiming  preemption  rights.  This  was  supported  by  Thomas  and  Buckner; 
and  opposed  by  Bates  and  Evans  on  the  ground  that  it  did  not  fall  within  the  powe  s 
and  duties  of  the  convention.  It  was  negatived.  {Journal,  p.  11;  Mo.  Inlell., 
July    1,    1820.) 

On  Juno  27,  Jones,  Talbot  and  Chouteau,  were  appointed  on  a  committee 
to  obtain  from  the  Territorial  Auditor  a  statement  of  the  taxes  assessed  on  and 
paid  by  th(!  counties  of  Missouri  'i'erritory  into  the  Territorial  Treasury  for  1817, 
1818,  and  181«).  {Journal,  p.  14.)  This  coniinlttee  r(M)ort(>(l  mi  .luly  1.  I)ut  it  is 
not  known  what  this  report  contained.  {Ibid.,  p.  1«>.)  The  purpose  of  the  con- 
vention was  undoubtedly  to  ol)tain  a  knowletlge  of  the  state's  revenue  in  order, 
tliereby,  to  estimate  accordingly  the  salaries  of  the  new  state  oftlcials. 

On  July  5,  a  committee  was  appointed,  compostnl  of  Jones,  Rector  and 
Wallace,  to  ascertain  the  tpiantity  of  Missouri  land  sold  by  tiie  United  States. 
This  committee  reported  on  the  8th  instant,  but  its  report  is  not  given.  {Ibid., 
pp.  25,  2*).) 


Labors  of  the  Convention.  \11 

in   the  refusal  of  Missouri's  first  constitutional  convention   to 
submit  the  fruits  of  its  labors  to  the  people. 

Of  the  twenty-four  state  constitutions  in  force  in  1820, 
six  had  been  submitted,  and  one  of  these  was  in  the  south.^'* 
From  1775  to  1820  inclusive,  there  had  assembled  forty-two 
conventions,  state  and  national,  that  had  either  framed  or 
amended  constitutions.  Of  this  forty-two  conventions,  fifteen 
had  submitted  their  work  to  the  people  or  to  their  representa- 
tives, twenty-seven  had  not.  If  the  purely  revolutionary 
bodies  of  1775  and  1776  are  eliminated,  the  number  of  sub- 
mitting conventions  remains  fifteen  but  the  number  of  non- 
submitting  conventions  is  reduced  to  seventeen.^^  Moreover, 
of  all  the  constitutions  and  constitutional  revisions  made  be- 
tween 1820  and  1830  inclusive,  Missouri's  was  the  only  one  that 
was  not  submitted  to  the  people.^^  From  these  generalizations 
alone,  it  seems  logical  to  conclude  that  the  principle  of  sub- 
mitting constitutions  to  the  people  or  their  representatives, 
was  firmly  established  in  the  United  States  from  the  very  in- 
ception of  our  government.  Although  down  to  1820  the  non- 
submitting  convention  was  slightly  the  stronger  of  the  two  in 
the  total  number  of  precedents,  not  one  of  these  non-submitting 
conventions  was  as  influential,  as  an  historical  example,  as  the 
submitting  convention  of  1787  that  framed  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution. Moreover,  during  the  decade  from  1820  to  1830,  the 
relation  of  the  number  of  submitting  conventions  to  the  number 
of  non-submitting  ones,  was  as  five  to  one.  Why,  then,  did 
the    Missouri   convention   of    1820    follow   the   non-submitting 


"Conn.  (1818);  Me.  (1819);  Mass.  (1780);  Miss.  (1817);  N.  H.  (1791);  and 
Vt.  (1792,  1820).  See  Jameson,  Const.  Convs.,  pp.  496ff.,  and  Appendix  B,  pp. 
643flf. 

"These  submitting  conventions  were:  Continental  Congress  (1775-81); 
Federal  Convention  (1787);  Ga.  (1788);  Me.  (1819);  Mass.  (1778,  1779,  1780. 
1820);  Miss.  (1817);  N.  H.   (1778,  1781,  1791);  Vt.  (1785,  1792.  1820). 

The  non-submitting  conventions  were:  Ala.  (1819);  Del.  (1792);  Del.. 
Ga.,  Md.,  N.  J.,  N.  Y.,  N.  C,  Pa.,  and  Va.  (1776);  Ga.  (1795.  1798);  lU.  (1818); 
Ind.  (1816);  Ky.  (1792,  1799);  La.  (1811);  Mo.  (1820);  N.  H.  (1775);  N.  Y.  (1801); 
O.   (1802);  Pa.   (1789);  S.  C.   (1775.   1778,  1790);  Tenn.   (1796);  Vt.   (1777). 

The  failure  of  the  revolutionary  conventions  of  1775  and  1776  to  submit 
their  labors  to  a  popular  vote,  was  probably  due  to  the  lack  of  time  and  to  a  fear 
of  a  large  adverse  vote  from  the  Tories  in  many  of  the  colonies. 

«Mo.  (1820);  Mass.  (1820);  N.  Y.  (1821);  R.  I.  (1824);  Va.  (1829);  Vt. 
(1820,    1827).     Ibid. 

M  S — 12 


178  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

class,  if  the  principal  of  submission  had  been  so  firmly  estab- 
lished in  our  political  system?  We  believe  that  there  was  a 
number  of  influences  operating  in  Missouri  against  submission: 
there  was  no  demand  on  the  part  of  the  people  for  such  a  refer- 
endum or  adoption;  the  people  of  Missouri  Territory  wanted  an 
immediate  state  government  without  further  delay;  the  dele- 
gates possessed  the  confidence  of  their  constituents;  the  con- 
stitution was  generally  acceptable;  submitting  conventions 
were  then  the  exception  in  the  south;  and  finally,  the  convention 
itself  was  undoubtedly  opposed  to  such  a  course.  Again  it  is 
probable  that  had  the  constitution  and  the  ordinance  of  ac- 
ceptance been  submitted  to  a  popular  vote,  both  would  have 
been  adopted  by  overwhelming  majorities.  The  former  would 
have  had  little  opposition:  the  latter  by  its  very  nature  would 
have  received  the  support  of  all.  It  may  not  be  altogether 
superfluous  to  add  that  the  Enabling  Act  by  not  requiring  the 
submission  of  these  two  laws  to  the  people  and  by  not  even 
implying  such  submission,  was  possibly  an  influence  in  itself 
against  such  a  course. 

The  ordinance  of  acceptance  is  based  almost  wholly  on  the 
sixth  section  of  the  Missouri  enabling  act  of  March  6,  1820. 
As  this  act  has  been  considered ,^^  we  will  not  again  analyze  it. 
It  will  be  recalled  that  section  six  of  this  act  set  forth  five 
propositions  or  five  proposed  United  States  donations  to  the 
new  State,  for  the  free  acceptance  or  rejection  by  the  convention. 
If  accepted,  these  propositions  were  to  be  binding  upon  the 
national  government,  but  they  were  conditioned  upon  two 
provisos:  the  convention  was  to  provide  by  an  ordinance, 
irrevocable  without  the  consent  of  the  United  States,  (1)  that 
all  public  lands  sold  in  Missouri  by  the  United  States  after 
January  1,  1821,  were  to  be  free  for  five  years  after  date  of  sale 
from  all  state,  county  and  township  taxes;  and  (2)  that  bounty 
lands,  granted  for  military  services  during  the  war  of  1812, 
were  to  be  similarly  exempt  from  taxes  for  three  years  from 
date  of  the  patents  providing  these  lands  were  held  by  the 
patentees  or  by  their  heirs. 


"  See  supra,  chap.  II.     For  a  copy  of  the  ordinance,  see  Appendix  IV. 


Labors  of  the  Convention.  179 

On  the  third  day  of  the  session  of  the  convention,  a  com- 
mittee was  appointed  to  consider  the  expediency  of  accepting 
or  rejecting  these  five  propositions  and  two  provisos.^*  Two 
days  later,  this  committee  made  its  report,  which  was  favorable 
tow^ards  accepting  the  propositions  and  provisos  of  Congress, 
and  submitted  the  draft  of  an  ordinance  relating  to  these  sub- 
jects. Both  the  report  and  the  ordinance  were  unanimously 
accepted  by  the  convention,  and  on  June  17th  the  ordinance, 
after  a  second  reading,  was  committed  to  a  committee  of  the 
whole  house.^^  While  before  this  committee  the  ordinance 
received  considerable  attention .^°  Scott  at  once  introduced  a 
substitute  ordinance,  in  which  were  recited  all  the  conditions 
contained  in  the  act  of  Congress  and  declaring  the  assent  of  the 
convention  thereto.  This  substitute  included  everything  that 
was  contained  in  the  original  ordinance,  i.  e.,  those  provisions 
that  composed  the  sixth  section  of  the  Enabling  Act,  and  also 
enumerated  and  assented  to  those  conditions  that  were  set 
forth  in  the  second  and  the  fourth  sections  of  the  act  of  Con- 
gress. Scott's  contention  was  that  this  ordinance  should 
assent  not  only  to  the  five  propositions  and  to  the  two  con- 
ditions in  the  sixth  section  but  also  to  those  conditions  in  the 
second  and  fourth  sections.  Heath,  chairman  of  the  committee 
that  framed  the  original  ordinance,  favored  the  substitute  so 
far  as  it  was  based  on  the  sixth  section,  but  opposed  those 
clauses  that  were  founded  on  the  conditions  in  the  second  and 
fourth  sections  of  the  enabling  act.  Heath  objected  to  including 
in  the  ordinance  anything  relating  to  the  free  and  common 
navigation  of  rivers  or  to  the  equal  taxation  of  the  lands  of 
non-residents  and  residents.  Buckner  also  took  this  position, 
and  declared  that  the  point  of  taxation  was  one  which  involved 
Missouri's  sovereignty  and  over  which  Congress  had  no  power 
to  dictate.     In   a   very   able   speech   Scott  defended   the   two 


»8  Journal,  pp.  7f.  Heath,  Ray  and  Buckner  were  appointed  on  this  com- 
mittee. 

»» Ibid.,  pp,  9fr.  The  ordinance  reported  by  this  committee  is  practically 
the  same  as  that  part  of  the  one  finally  adopted  which  begins  with  the  words, 
"Now,  this  convention,  for  and  in  behalf  of  the  people"  etc.,  and  which  closes 
with  the  words  "from  and  after  the  date  of  the  patents  respectively." 

*<>  Mo.  Intel!.,  July  1,  1820.  The  ordinance  was  discussed  all  Monday  after- 
noon, June  19th. 


180  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

points  objected  to  by  Heath  and  Buckner.  He  appealed  to 
the  convention's  sense  of  justice  on  the  taxation  proviso,  de- 
fending this  proviso  with  many  precedents  drawn  from  Ameri- 
can state  history,  and  urged  its  inclusion  in  the  ordinance  from 
the  standpoint  of  policy.  Bates,  in  a  speech  of  considerable 
length,  opposed  the  additional  provisos  in  Scott's  substitute 
and  especially  the  one  that  related  to  taxation.  He  said  that 
he  regarded  Scott's  historical  examples  as  being  inapplicable 
in  this  case,  that  he  would  never  consent  to  purchase  Missouri's 
admission  into  the  Union  at  the  price  of  her  relinquishing  so 
important  an  attribute  of  state  sovereignty,  and  that  he  not 
only  favored  placing  this  power  in  the  hands  of  the  Missouri 
legislature  but  thought  that  it  might  be  well  for  that  body  to 
actually  impose  a  higher  tax  on  non-resident  than  on  resident 
land-holders.  Bates  concluded  by  offering  the  following  amend- 
ment to  the  first  section  of  the  substitute,  which  section,  we 
believe,  contained  the  provisos  relating  to  the  free  and  common 
navigation  of  Missouri  rivers:'*^  ''provided  that  Congress  be 
requested  so  to  modify  the  third  proposition  as  to  allow  the 
whole  of  the  sum  of  five  per  cent  to  be  appropriated  within  the 
state  to  the  construction  of  roads  and  canals,  and  promotion 
of  education,  under  the  direction  of  the  legislature  thereof." 
This  amendment  having  been  agreed  to,  the  committee  of  the 
whole  took  up  the  consideration  of  the  second  section  of  the 
substitute  ordinance.  Green  delivered  two  speeches  in  an 
attempt  to  slightly  amend  this  section,  which  related  to  the 
equal  taxation  of  non-resident  and  resident  land-holders. 
Emmons,  Scott,  Cook  of  Ste.  Genevieve,  and  Barton  opposed 
and  finally  defeated  Green's  amendment.  Barton  and  Thomas 
then  opposed  the  entire  section  and  succeeded  in  having  it  struck 
out.  The  substitute  ordinance  as  amended  by  Bates  was  re- 
ported to  the  convention,  concurred  in,  and  ordered  to  be  en- 
grossed. On  July  14th  the  convention  agreed  to  the  engrossed 
ordinance  on  its  third  reading,''-  and  three  days  later,  after  an 
attempt,   made  by  McFerron,   to  defeat  it  had   failed,   it  was 


«'  It  is  not  dear  what  was  the  first  section  of  Scott's  substitute. 
♦'  Journal,  p.  44. 


Labors  of  the  Convention.  181 

again  carried  in  the  affirmative.''^  After  having  been  correctly 
enrolled,  the  final  draft  of  the  ordinance  was  signed  by  Barton 
and  Pettus  on  the  last  day  of  the  session  of  the  convention."*^ 

We  have  treated  this  subject  at  greater  length  than  is 
customary;  but  to  us  such  treatment  appears  clearly  war- 
ranted. This  ordinance  is  one  of  the  few  organic  laws  that  have 
applied  to  Missouri;  and  further,  it  is  today  the  second  oldest 
fundamental  law  that  is  in  force  in  this  state.  The  acts  of 
Congress  passed  between  1804  and  1820  that  applied  to  the 
government  of  upper  Louisiana  and  Missouri  Territory,  were 
superceded  by  the  Missouri  constitution  of  1820;  the  latter  by 
the  constitution  of  1865;  and  this  in  turn  by  the  present  con- 
stitution of  1875.  But,  the  ordinance  of  July  19,  1820,  passed 
by  the  convention  of  that  date,  was  "irrevocable  except  on  the 
consent  of  Congress."  Finally,  this  ordinance  although  not  a 
requisite  for  the  admission  of  Missouri  was  necessary  if  that 
state  expected  to  receive  national  land  grants  and  money  aid 
for  internal  improvements,  education  and  a  seat  of  government. 

Its  authors  in  the  convention  were  Heath,  Scott,  and  Bates. 
Its  passage  in  the  convention  reveals  several  interesting  side 
lights  on  that  body.  The  delegates  favored  the  strictest  and 
most  limited  interpretation  of  those  conditions  or  provisos  im- 
posed on  Missouri  by  Congress  that  were  to  be  included  in  the 
ordinance;  and,  on  the  contrary,  though  quite  naturally,  they 
requested  Congress  to  broaden  the  scope  of  her  donations. 
The  convention  refused  to  declare  by  an  irrevocable  law  that 
Missouri  would  never  impose  a  higher  tax  on  non-resident 
land-holders  than  on  resident  land-holders,^^  but  at  the  same 
time  that  body  was  practically  a  unit  in  placing  in  that  ordinance 
a  plea  for  Congress  to  grant  more  money  for  roads  and  canals 
in  Missouri.     We  do  not  believe  that  the  convention  willfully 


"  Ibid.,  p.  46. 

**  Ibid.,  p.  46flf. 

"  This  prohibition  and  the  proviso  relating  to  navigable  rivers  were  placed 
on  the  general  assembly  of  Missouri  in  Article  X  of  the  constitution  of  1820. 
That  article,  however,  contained  no  clause  which  exempted  it  from  being  subject 
to  amendment  the  same  as  the  other  provision  of  the  constitution;  nor  is  such  a 
proviso  clause  contained  in  that  article  which  provided  the  manner  of  amending 
the    constitution. 


182  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

tried  to  antagonize  Congress  on  the  taxation  question,  it  seems 
to  us  that  the  proviso  of  Congress  on  this  point  was  inherently 
an  unpopular  one  to  the  delegates  and  their  constituents.  The 
non-resident  holder  of  Missouri  land  escaped  at  least  one 
arduous,  dangerous,  and  not  inexpensive  duty:  He  was  free 
from  militia  service  in  this  state.  Furthermore,  he  was  as  a 
rule  not  only  an  unprogressive  factor  in  the  state  but  frequently 
a  serious  drawback  to  its  development.  The  curse  of  land 
speculation  was  a  serious  problem  in  those  pioneer  days.  The 
messages  of  the  first  governor  of  Wisconsin  Territory  are  full 
of  this  subject.'*^  This  mania  of  legalized  gambling  had  pos- 
sessed Missouri  from  the  very  inception  of  American  rule. 
Disastrous  as  were  its  evils  when  confined  to  resident  land- 
holders, these  evils  never  aroused  that  wave  of  popular  disfavor 
and  positive  hatred  that  was  directed  against  the  absentee 
landlords.  The  former  at  least  shared  the  burdens  and  dangers 
of  a  frontier  life;  the  latter  were  regarded,  justly  or  unjustly, 
as  profitting  by  the  pioneers'  industry  without  contributing 
anything  to  the  development  of  the  state.  Even  such  a  con- 
servative and  temperate  minded  man  as  Bates  apparently 
thought  that  equal  taxation  under  such  circumstances  was 
unjust.  With  Bates  stood  Barton,  Heath,  Buckner,  and 
Thomas,  and  the  convention  itself,  while  only  two.  Green  and 
Scott,  spoke  in  favor  of  this  proviso.  The  least  that  the  con- 
vention could  do  and  still  comply  with  the  demands  of  Con- 
gress, was  exactly  what  it  did:  The  taxation  and  navigation 
provisos  were  inserted  in  the  constitution,  but  nowhere  in  that 
document  were  these  provisos  or  any  other  provisos  exempt 
from  the  ordinary  process  of  amendment. 

In  framing  the  constitution  the  committee  method  was 
adopted  by  the  convention.  The  advantages  of  this  method 
over  the  assembly  method  are  so  well  known  that  a  detailed 
exposition  of  it  is  hardly  necessary.  The  former  manner  of 
working  is  almost  imperative  in  any  large  deliberative  body 
and  lends  itself  very  conveniently  to  tlie  needs  and  wishes  of 
a  small  assembly.  By  a  division  of  labors  and  by  a  specializa- 
tion  of  work   the  committee  system   enables  such   a   body   to 

"See  Shambaugh.  Messages  of  the  Governors  of  Iowa,  I. 


Labors  of  the  Convention.  183 

progress  with  greater  dispatch,  to  handle  more  questions 
within  a  Hmited  time,  and  to  perform  a  higher  quaUty  of  work. 
This  system  does  not  necessarily  carry  with  it  the  elimination 
of  deliberation  on  the  part  of  the  body  that  appoints  or  adopts 
it;  the  opposite  is  generally  the  rule.  The  assembly  plan  of 
procedure  does  eliminate  the  committee,  but  the  committee 
plan  is  essentially  a  complement  to,  and  not  an  absorber  of, 
the  assembly. 

The  first  resolution  submitted  to  the  convention  on  this 
subject  was  proposed  by  Bates.  He  favored  the  appointment 
of  a  single  committee  to  draft  a  constitution."*^  The  convention 
refused,  however,  to  adopt  this  measure."*^  On  the  same  day, 
June  13th,  a  resolution  was  proposed  by  Thomas,  and  carried, 
that  four  committees,  each  consisting  of  three  members,  be 
appointed  by  the  president  of  the  convention  to  do  the  following 
work:  one  committee  was  to  draft  the  legislative  department, 
on  it  were  appointed  Jones,  Emmons  and  Clark;  one,  the  ex- 
ecutive, composed  of  Rector,  Cook  of  Madison  and  Evans;  one 
the  judiciary,  composed  of  Thomas,  Cook  of  Ste.  Genevieve 
and  Bates;  and  one,  the  bill  of  rights  and  other  parts  not  before 
mentioned,  composed  of  Ramsay,  Hammond  and  Green. "^^  We 
do  not  hesitate  to  say  that,  including  Barton,  who  undoubtedly 
exercised  a  great  influence  over  the  members  of  all  the  com- 
mittees by  virtue  of  both  his  ability  and  his  power  of  appoint- 
ment, most  of  the  influential  men  of  the  convention  were  placed 


«'  Journal,   p.   5. 

<8  Bates  left  blank  the  number  of  committee  places.  There  are,  we  believe, 
only  two  advantages  in  Bates'  plan  over  the  assembly  plan:  the  constitution  if 
framed  by  one  committee  would  probably  have  been  more  unified  in  both  subject 
matter  and  style,  and  would  probably  have  been  framed  in  less  time.  There  is 
also  this  possible  item  in  its  favor,  that  if  the  committee  was  composed  of  the 
ablest  men  of  the  convention,  the  constitution  so  framed  might  have  been  a 
stronger  document.  We  do  not,  however,  regard  this  last  as  a  necessary  con- 
clusion even  if  the  committee  had  been  composed  of  only  one  member  and  he,  a 
Bates,  a  Barton,  a  Benton,  or  a  Jones.  On  the  other  hand.  Bates'  plan  carries 
with  it  some  definite  objections:  if  the  committee  is  small,  too  few  men  are  in- 
vested with  too  much  power,  and,  further,  it  cannot  be  representative  of  the  state 
at  large  in  those  great  fields  of  legislation  set  forth  in  a  constitution;  if  the  com- 
mittee is  large,  then  it  either  loses  that  celerity  of  action  and  power  of  specializa- 
tion which  are  the  foundations  of  the  committee  system,  or  it  divides  itself  into 
several  sub-committees.  The  convention  was  doubtless  aware  of  these  ob- 
jections and  voted  accordingly. 

<9  Journal,  pp.  5,  7. 


184  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

on  these  four  committees.^^  Although  ten  of  the  fifteen  coun- 
ties of  the  territory  were  represented  on  these  four  committees, 
only  three  of  the  counties  were  north  of  the  Missouri  River.^^ 
And  of  the  twelve  committee  places  only  four  were  held  by  the 
delegates  who  represented  that  half  of  Missouri's  population 
that  lay  north  of  the  River  and  in  the  county  of  Cooper.  Fur- 
ther, only  one  chairmanship  of  these  four  was  given  to  this 
section.  This  unfairness  was  partly  offset,  however,  by  the 
fact  that  although  the  northern  and  extreme  western  counties 
were  allowed  only  four  representatives  on  these  committees, 
these  four  controlled  two  committees.^^  But  on  the  other  two 
committees  these  counties  had  no  representatives  whatever  to 
voice  their  wishes. 

The  four  committees  appointed  on  Tuesday,  June  13th, 
reported  to  the  convention  on  Friday,  June  16th,  the  several 
parts  of  the  constitution  that  they  had  drafted.^^  Cook  of 
Madison  then  made  a  motion  that  the  several  reports  be  com- 
mitted to  a  select  committee  composed  of  one  member  from 
each  of  the  four  committees,  for  the  purpose  of  forming  these 
reports  into  one  consistent  whole.  Thomas  asked  for  the 
reading  of  these  reports,  that  the  convention  might  see  the 
necessity  of  the  commitment.  This  request  very  singularly, 
we  think,  appears  to  have  aroused  much  discussion  among  the 
delegates.  Remarks  were  make  by  such  eminent  men  as 
Thomas,  Heath,  Green,  Cook  of  Madison,  Cook  of  Ste.  Gene- 
vieve, Buckner,  Emmons  and  Bates.  An  entire  day  was  spent 
considering  this  very  commonplace  request,  which  in  itself  if 


••  Scott  had  not  then  taken  his  seat,  the  appointment  of  Rector  and  Bates 
from  St.  Louis  naturally  excluded  McNair  and  Pratte,  since  tlie  appointment 
of  more  than  two  members  from  one  county  would  probably  have  aroused  criii- 
cism. 

•'  Of  the  twelve  committee  places  on  these  four  committees,  eight  were  held 
by  delegates  from  Washington,  St.  Charles,  Cooper,  Madison.  Ste.  Genevieve. 
Montgomery,  Jefferson,  and  Howard;  two,  from  St.  Louis;  and  two,  from  Cape 
Girardeau.  It  is  singular  that  New  Madrid  was  the  only  county  having  two  or 
more  delegates  that  was  not  represented  on  these  committees.  No  county's 
delegates  constituted  a  majority  of  any  committee.  See  supra,  Chap.  V.  on  tlie 
occupations  represented  on  tiies(^  four  commit teivs. 

"These  two  committees  were  the  legislative  an(i  hill  of  rights  committee. 

*'  Journal,  p.  10.  Tlie  cliairman  of  tliese  committees  iJrcsnUt-d  tlu'ir  reports 
severally  except  in  the  case  of  the  executive  committee,  wlio.se  work  was  reported 
by  Cook  of  Madison  and  not  by  Hector.     Mo.  IntclL,  June  24,  1820. 


Labors  of  the  Convention.  185 

granted  would  probably  not  have  taken  over  an  hour's  time. 
We  can  see  no  sensible  reason  for  any  of  the  delegates  opposing 
Thomas'  motion  unless  it  was  either  a  sincere  desire  on  the  part 
of  some  to  facilitate  business  and  not  to  get  involved  in  debate 
so  early  in  the  session,  or  the  fear  of  others  that  the  convention 
would  be  too  thoroughly  enlightened,  either  favorably  or  un- 
favorably, regarding  certain  parts  of  the  constitution  before 
these  parts  could  be  successfully  opposed  or  defended  by  some 
leaders  of  that  body.  The  opponents  of  Thomas'  motion  were 
finally  successful  and  the  reading  of  the  four  reports  was  dis- 
pensed with :  Cook's  motion  for  a  select  committee  was  adopted 
and  Jones,  Evans,  Cook  of  Ste.  Genevieve  and  Ramsay,  were 
appointed  on  it.°'* 

We  regard  the  work  accomplished  by  the  convention  on 
this  day,  June  16th,  as  significant.  First,  certain  leaders  in 
that  body  then  actually  accomplished  the  remarkable  feat  of 
persuading  the  delegates  not  to  hear  the  reports  of  those  com- 
mittees that  they  had  authorized  and  that  had  been  appointed, 
to  draft  a  constitution  for  Missouri.  These  reports  w^ere  never 
read  or  printed.  Their  contents  were  as  much  a  sealed  book 
to  the  large  majority  of  the  delegates  as  they  are  to  us.  The 
original  draft  of  Missouri's  first  constitution  will  never  be 
known.  It  is  certain  that  a  determined  fight  was  made  to  ac- 
complish this  virtual  suppression  of  these  original  reports.  We 
believe  that  this  suppression  was  a  thoroughly  and  deeply 
planned,  an  ably  and  successfully  executed,  step  towards  ob- 
taining the  substantial  adoption  of  Bates'  defeated  resolution 
of  June  13th.  What  could  not  be  won  directly  was  to  be  gained 
indirectly.  Our  conviction  is  strengthened  not  only  by  what 
immediately  followed  on  June  16th,  but  also  by  this,  that  the 
report  or  reports  on  this  constitution  of  no  other  committees, 
however  insignificant,  were  ever  recommitted  to  a  new  com- 
mittee without  either  having  previously  been  read  and  acted 
upon  by  the  convention  or  printed  for  the  use  of  its  members. 
Second,  on  this  day  a  small  committee  was  decided  upon  and 
appointed,  which  in  actual  power  was  simply  Bates'   original 


**  Mo.  Intell.,  June  24,  1820;  Journal,  p.  10.     The  Journal  reveals  nothing 
regarding  this  struggle;  we  obtained  our  account  from  the  iV/o.  Intell. 


186  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

committee  resurrected  from  its  grave  of  defeat. ^^  The  author 
of  the  former  was  Cook  of  Madison,  of  the  latter,  Bates;  the 
one  was  called  a  select  committee  and  its  powers  and  duties  in 
drafting  a  constitution  were  practically  unlimited,  the  other 
was  not  given  a  name  and  its  powers  were  to  draft  a  constitu- 
tion. This  slight  and  wholly  superficial  difference  was  sufficient, 
aided  undoubtedly  by  new  promises  and  combinations,  to  snatch 
victory  from  defeat.  Finally,  the  select  committee  appointed 
on  this  day  was  singularly  unrepresentative  of  the  districts  of 
Missouri  Territory.  This  committee  of  all  the  committees  ap- 
pointed during  this  convention,  should  have  been  the  most 
representative  of  the  several  parts  of  Missouri  Territory.  The 
unlimited  power  vested  in  it  to  draft  a  constitution  raised  it 
above  all  other  committees  in  importance.  It  was  in  essence 
the  four  original  committees  contracted  to  one  committee  and 
reduced  to  four  members.  But  while  a  certain  amount  of  in- 
justice to  the  western  and  northern  counties  was  apparent  in 
the  membership  of  the  four  committees,  this  injustice  was 
equity  itself  when  contrasted  with  the  obvious  discrimination 
shown  in  the  membership  of  the  select  committee.  In  spite 
of  the  fact,  more  or  less  appreciated  by  the  convention,  that 
half  of  Missouri's  population  was  in  the  tier  of  northern  and 
far  western  counties  in  1820,  these  counties  had  only  one  dele- 
gate on  this  select  committee,  while  the  other  half  of  the  terri- 
tory had  three  delegates  on  it.  Another  significant  feature 
regarding  the  composition  of  this  all  powerful  committee  is 
this,  that  of  its  four  members  three  were  lawyers  of  the  highest 
ability  and  influence.  In  other  words,  of  the  nme  lawyer  dele- 
gates, one  appointed  the  committee  that  made  the  original 
draft  of  Missouri's  first  constitution  and  three  absolutelv  con- 


»' AccordinK  to  the  JourrKil.  p.  10,  the  reports  of  the  four  coiiimittoos  "were 
recommitted  to  a  select  eoinmittee."  It  is  true  tliat  tlie  eorrespoiuient  of  the 
Mo.  Intel!.,  June  24.  1«20.  states  that  Cook  of  Madison,  who  was  (he  author  of 
the  select  committee  motion,  favored  this  select  committee  in  order  to  have  it 
unify  these  four  ri^ports.  But  it  is  quite  imi)robal)Ie  tiiat  this  purpose  or  arKumont 
of  Crook's  was  incorporated  in  his  motion.  And.  further,  the  Journal  is  very 
explicit  in  all  other  cases  In  stating  tiie  duty  of  eacii  committee.  Its  silence  hero 
can  be  attributed  only  to  tiiis,  (hat  tlie  duty  of  tlie  svlvvi  committee  was  not  sot 
fortii  in  (he  mo(ion  tiiat  created  it.  And.  (Inaliy.  tl>e  iK'noranee  of  (hi' convention 
rcBardiuK  the  contents  of  the  reports  of  (hi'  four  c«)mmi((«'es,  enabled  (he  select 
committee  to  al(er  at  will  those  reports  and  even  frame  a  practically  new  draft. 


Labors  of  the  Convention.  187 

trolled  that  committee.  Our  summaries  are  even  these:  (1) 
fifty  per  cent  of  Missouri's  population  in  1820,  the  extreme 
northern  and  western  portions,  was  given  a  representation  of 
only  twenty-five  per  cent  on  the  select  committee;  the  other 
fifty  per  cent  of  Missouri's  population,  the  southern  portion, 
had  a  representation  of  seventy-five  per  cent  in  this  same  body: 
(2)  twenty-two  per  cent  of  the  delegates,  the  nine  lawyers  in 
the  convention,  was  given  a  representation  of  seventy-five  per 
cent  on  the  select  committee, — an  overwhelming  working 
majority  in  any  business — ;  the  other  seventy-eight  per  cent 
of  the  delegates,  the  business,  agricultural,  and  professional 
men,  had  a  representation  of  only  twenty-five  per  cent  on  this 
committee. ^^ 

The  ability  of  the  select  committee  to  accomplish  work 
with  dispatch,  is  seen  in  the  fact  that  it  reported  to  the  conven- 
tion on  the  day  following  its  creation.^^  Fifty  copies  of  this 
report  were  ordered  printed  for  the  use  of  the  delegates;  but 
since  not  one  of  these  pamphlets  has  been  preserved,  and,  owing 
also  to  the  unsatisfactory  and  incomplete  character  of  the 
Journal,  it  is  impossible  to  obtain  the  slightest  clue  as  to  the 
contents  of  this  report.  The  different  parts  of  this  report  were 
considered  from  time  to  time  by  the  convention  resolved  into  a 
committee  of  the  whole.  In  this  committee  the  constitution 
was  discussed  section  by  section,  and  it  is  regrettable  that  no 
minutes  of  these  debates  were  kept  either  by  some  member  or 
by  the  secretary  of  the  convention.  As  articles  of  the  constitu- 
tion were  decided  upon  by  the  committee  of  the  whole,  they 
were  reported  by  it  to  the  convention  for  a  third  reading. ^^     On 


"  Cf.  supra,  chap.  V.,  on  the  personnel  of  the  convention.  We  are  unable 
to  explain  why  Rector  and  Thomas,  the  respective  chairman  of  the  executive 
and  judicial  committees,  were  not  appointed  on  this  select  committee.  It  seems 
that  this  would  have  been  a  natural  selection  and  in  the  case  of  Ramsay  and 
Jones,  the  respective  chairmen  of  the  legislative  and  bill  of  rights  committees, 
this  plan  was  followed.  It  is  not  improbable  that  both  Rector  and  Thomas 
were  not  personae  gratae  to  Barton,  and  Thomas'  request  to  have  the  four  reports 
read  to  the  convention  seems  to  be  in  line  with  this  assumption. 

'7  Journal,  p.  10.  The  Journal,  here  speaks  of  the  select  committees  as  one 
"appointed  for  the  purpose  of  revising  and  consolidating  the  different  reports 
made  to  the  convention  relating  to  the  constitution  to  be  formed." 

ss  The  Journal  is  not  clear  in  its  account  of  this  last  point.  The  minutes  of 
the  proceedings  of  the  convention  seem  to  indicate  that  the  committee  of  the 
whole  reported  directly  to  the  convention;  the  duty  of  the  committee  on  style. 


188  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

this  third  reading  the  convention  considered  the  constitution 
section  by  section.  The  Journal  for  the  first  time  now  throws 
a  Httle  Hght  on  the  different  parts  of  that  instrument;  but  this 
Hght  is  provokingly  unsatisfactory.  As  no  section  of  the  con- 
stitution is  printed  in  the  Journal  unless  some  amendment  was 
proposed  and  frequently  even  then  only  the  amendment  is  given, 
it  is  difficult  if  not  impossible  to  determine  the  substance  of 
many  of  the  sections  either  as  reported  by  the  committee  of  the 
whole  or  as  adopted  at  this  time  by  the  convention. ^^ 

On  June  29th  Bates  submitted  a  resolution  that  provided 
for  the  appointment  of  what  might  be  appropriately  called  a 
committee  on  style.  Bates'  resolution  was  adopted  by  the 
convention,  and  Bates,  Cook  of  Ste.  Genevieve  and  Findlay, 
were  appointed  on  the  committee.^^  The  duty  and  power  of 
this  committee  on  style,  as  set  forth  in  the  resolution,  were 
to  revise,  arrange  and  transpose,  if  necessary,  the  sections  of 
the  constitution  as  passed  by  the  committee  of  the  whole  with- 
out altering  in  any  respect  the  substance  thereof.  It  was, 
therefore,  purely  a  committee  on  style  or  revision,  a  body  pos- 
sessing no  original  legislative  power.  Although  the  provisions 
of  the  resolutions  relating  to  this  committee  on  style  were  clear, 
it  does  not  appear  that  this  committee  followed  them.  In  the 
first  place,  it  did  not  revise  the  constitution  after  the  action  of 
the  committee  of  the  whole  but  considered  that  document  after 
the  convention  had  passed  upon  it  on  its  third  reading.  We  do 
not,  however,  see  any  special  significance  in  this  departure  from 
instructions.  In  the  second  place,  although  the  committee  on 
style  was  forbidden  to  alter  the  substance  of  any  section  of  the 


which  will  next  be  considered,  was  "to  revise,  arrange,  and  whore  it  may  be  nectJ- 
sary,  transpose  the  s(^ctions  of  the  constitution,  as  the  same  have  passed  the 
committee  of  the  wliohs  without  altering  in  any  respect  the  substance  thereof." 
(Journal,  p.  15.)  It  ilovs  not  appear,  however,  that  this  new  committee,  the 
committee  on  style,  ever  revi.sed  the  reports  of  the  committee  of  the  wliole  until 
after  these  rei)orts  were  acted  upon  by  the  convention. 

»•  We  have  supplemented  tlu!  Journal's  account  of  tlu*  drafting  and  adopting 
of  the  constitution  with  tlu!  accounts  in  the  Missouri  newspapers  of  that  period. 
One  of  our  greatest  losses  is  the  two  missing  issues  of  the  Mo.  Intcll.  of  July  8th 
and  l.'ith,  1820,  which  would  undoul)tedly  have  cleared  up  several  of  our  problems 
in  this  line.  The  llles  of  the  other  Mi.ssouri  newspajx^rs  covering  the  months  of 
June  and  July  are  eitluT  incomplete  or  contain  111  tie  information  on  the  workings 
of   the  convention. 

"Journal,  j).   15. 


Labors  of  the  Convention.  189 

constitution,  it  appears  that  this  was  done  in  several  instances. 
The  comparative  ease  with  which  this  alteration  could  be  ac- 
complished made  this  prohibition  of  little  actual  worth.  The 
constitution  as  acted  upon  on  its  third  reading  by  the  convention 
was  not  printed,  nor  was  the  constitution  as  reported  by  the 
committee  of  the  whole  printed;  the  first  printed  draft  of  the 
constitution  was  that  reported  by  the  select  committee,  which 
draft  had  been  changed  in  the  committee  of  the  whole  and  later 
in  the  convention.  The  failure  of  the  committee  to  print  the 
constitution  as  it  was  handed  over  to  the  committee  on  style, 
enabled  that  committee  to  exercise  powers  that  were  not  granted 
to  it.  This  last  function  was  rendered  even  more  secure  by  the 
total  absence  of  any  record  of  the  changes  made  by  the  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  on  the  report  of  the  select  committee  and 
by  the  incomplete,  almost  obscure,  minutes,  kept  by  the  sec- 
retary, of  the  proceedings  of  the  convention  on  its  consideration 
of  the  report  of  the  committee  of  the  whole,  combined  with 
those  very  simple  and  apparently  unimportant,  but  really 
most  significant,  powers  of  the  committee  on  style  to  revise, 
arrange,  and,  if  necessary,  transpose  the  sections  of  the  con- 
stitution. By  these  powers,  the  committee  on  style,  was 
easily  enabled  to  so  rearrange  the  sections  that  in  the  absence 
of  a  printed  copy  of  the  constitution  as  reported  either  by  the 
committee  of  the  whole  or  by  the  convention,  few  delegates 
could  have  detected  all  the  changes  made. 

The  committee  on  style  reported  from  time  to  time  to  the 
convention  the  various  articles  of  the  constitution  that  had 
been  submitted  to  it  for  revision.  Although  nearly  all  of  the 
constitution  passed  through  the  hands  of  this  committee,  its 
report  on  only  three  articles  was  ordered  printed, ^^  and  not 
one  of  these  printed  copies  has  been  preserved.  Moreover,  it 
is,  with  very  few  exceptions,  impossible  to  obtain  from  the 
Journal  a  complete  knowledge  of  what  these  various  reports 
were.  The  same  obstacles  here  confront  the  research  worker 
that  are  met  with  in  considering  the  reports  of  the  committee 
of  the  whole  to  the  convention.     There  is,  however,  this  ad- 


"These  were  on  the  legislative,  executive  and  judicial  departments.    Journal, 
p.  27. 


190  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood, 

vantage  in  analyzing  the  report  of  the  committee  on  style: 
In  some  instances  where  the  text  of  a  reported  section  is  not 
given  in  the  Journal  and  that  section  is  not  later  changed  by 
the  convention,  its  wording  is  the  same  as  was  finally  inserted 
in  the  constitution.  The  difficulty  lies  in  ascertaining  the 
identity  of  the  number  of  the  section  as  reported  and  its  number 
as  adopted.  In  nearly  all  other  cases  the  contents  of  a  reported 
section  is  given  in  full  in  the  Journal,  i.  e.,  in  those  cases  where 
amendments  to  sections  were  proposed  or  adopted  by  the  con- 
vention. 

The  committee  on  style  was  one  of  the  two  most  important 
committees  that  framed  Missouri's  first  constitution.  However, 
it  did  not,  we  believe,  make  any  important  alterations  in  several 
articles  of  that  instrument,  although  these  articles  were  re- 
ported upon  by  it  in  a  manner  similar  to  the  method  pursued 
in  handling  the  body  of  the  constitution.  The  parts  we  refer 
to  are:  "Article  VIII.  of  Banks,"  "Article  XI.  Of  The  Permanent 
Seat  Of  Government,"  and  the  "Schedule"  of  the  constitution. 
The  importance  and  publicity  attached  to  these  three  subjects 
rendered  any  shadowy  alteration  of  their  contents  a  perilous 
undertaking  for  any  committee,  even  though  that  committee 
was  composed  of  the  leaders  of  the  convention.  The  con- 
centration of  the  convention's  attention  on  any  part  of  the 
constitution  greatly  compromised  the  otherwise  commanding 
leadership  of  certain  men.  And  few  parts  of  that  document 
were  more  closely  followed  by  every  delegate,  public  men, 
editor,  and  a  large  majority  of  the  voters  of  Missouri,  than 
those  few  clauses  that  regulated  the  establishing  of  a  State 
bank,  the  determining  of  a  permanent  and  a  temporary  seat  of 
government,  and  that  settled  the  apportionment  of  the  members 
of  the  first  State  legislature.  Three  special  committees  were 
appointed  to  handle  these  subjects  even  after  they  had  been 
considered  by  the  committee  of  the  whole  following  the  report 
of  the  select  committee. 

On  June  26th  a  committee  composed  of  Cook  of  Stc.  Gene- 
vieve, Pratte  and  Dawson,  was  appointed  to  inquire  into  what 
action  should  be  taken  by  the  convention  regarding  the  pro- 
posed gift  of  four  sections  of  land  from  the  United  States  gov- 


Labors  of  the  Convention.  191 

ernment  for  a  permanent  seat  of  government  of  Missouri. ^^ 
On  July  3d  this  committee  reported  and  its  report,  after  a  reading, 
was  laid  on  the  table. ^-^  Nothing  further  was  done  with  this 
report  and  its  contents  is  not  known.  On  the  same  day  that 
this  committee  reported  another  committee  composed  of  Jones, 
Houts  and  McFerron,  was  appointed  to  report  on  the  Schedule 
and  Banking  articles  of  the  constitution. ^"^  On  July  6th,  this 
last  committee  reported  to  the  convention  on  a  "State  Bank 
and  Branches"  and  on  the  "Schedule,"  and  these  were  referred 
to  and  considered  by  the  committee  of  the  whole.^^  The  con- 
tents of  these  two  reports  are  not  known. ^^  The  schedule  as 
finally  reported  by  the  committee  of  the  whole  to  the  con- 
vention contained  sections  on  a  permanent  and  a  temporary 
seat  of  government  as  well  as  provisions  regulating  the  transition 
from  a  territorial  to  a  state  government  in  Missouri.  The 
committee  on  style  did  not  change  the  important  sections  of 
the  schedule  but  it  did  report  that  section  of  it  which  related 
to  the  permanent  seat  of  government  as  a  separate  article,  and 
this  revision  was  agreed  to  by  the  convention."  The  report 
of  the  committee  of  the  whole  on  a  state  bank  was  displaced  by 
a  substitute  article  submitted  to  the  convention  by  Bates.^^ 
The  debate  in  the  convention  over  this  subject  was  extended 
and  lasted  for  several  days.  Bates'  substitute  was  finally  re- 
ferred to  a  new  banking  committee  composed  of  Findlay, 
Reeves  and  Riddick.^^  This  new  committee  reported  a  substi- 
tute for  Bates'  very  conservative  bank  measure  and  this  new 
substitute  was  adopted  by  the  convention. 


"  Journal,  p.  13.  The  author  of  the  resolution  that  created  this  committee 
was  Cook  of  Ste.  Genevieve.  It  is  of  interest  to  notice  that  no  northern  or 
western  delegate  was  on  this  committee  and  also  that  the  agricultural  class  was 
unrepresented. 

•»  Ibid.,   p.   23. 

«*  Ibid.,  p.  20.  Findlay  was  the  author  of  the  motion  that  created  this  com- 
mittee. 

"  Ibid.,   pp.   27f. 

"  The  former,  on  banks,  was  ordered  printed,  but  no  copy  exists. 

•'  Ibid.,  pp.  39,  45.  The  committee  on  style  reported  the  schedule  on  July 
13th  and  the  permanent  seat  of  government  article  on  the  15th. 

**  Ibid.,  pp.  27fl. 

•»  Ibid.,  p.  30.  Findlay  was  the  author  of  the  motion  creating  this  new 
bank  committee. 


192  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

The  last  committee  on  the  constitution  to  be  appointed 
was  that  on  enrollment.  On  July  12th,  Findlay,  Cook  of  Ste. 
Genevieve  and  Bates,  were  appointed  on  this  committee  and 
on  the  13th,  the  secretary  of  the  convention  was  ordered  to 
deliver  to  it  "the  different  articles  of  the  constitution  as  they 
shall  have  been  acted  on,  for  the  purpose  of  having  them  en- 
grossed for  a  third  reading,  and  final  passage."  ^°  On  the  17th 
of  July  the  engrossed  constitution  was  read  in  its  final  passage 
and  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  thirty-nine  to  one.  Emmons 
was  absent  on  this  final  vote  owing  to  indisposition.  Mc- 
Ferron  cast  a  vote  against  the  adoption  of  the  constitution 
because  of  his  objection  to  that  section  which  disqualified  every 
citizen  naturalized  since  1804  from  being  a  qualified  candidate 
for  governor  of  Missouri. ^^  On  the  19th  the  committee  on 
enrollment  reported  to  the  convention  that  the  constitution 
had  been  truly  enrolled.  It  was  then  signed  by  the  president 
and  by  all  the  delegates,  "and  countersigned  by  the  secretary."  ^^ 


^'^Ibid.,  p.  39.  A  committee  was  appointed  on  the  17th  to  cause  the  con- 
stitution to  be  translated  into  the  French  language,  and  three  hundred  copies 
to  be  printed  and  distributed  for  the  use  of  the  French  inhabitants.  Pratte, 
Chouteau  and  Riddick  were  appointed  on  this  committee.     Ibid.,   p.   46. 

"  Ibid.,  pp.  46f.  McFerron  obtained  leave  of  the  convention  to  enter  this 
objection  on  the  Journal.     McFerron's  objection  was  to  Art.  IV.  sec.  2. 

"  Ibid.,  pp.  47f. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE  MISSOURI  CONSTITUTION 

OF  1820. 

The  authorship  of  the  Missouri  constitution  of  1820  will 
always  prove  an  interesting  subject  for  discussion  and  investiga- 
tion. This  subject  carries  all  the  "ear-marks"  for  controversial 
writing  that  are  so  characteristic  of  many  questions  in  English 
constitutional  history.  The  latter  are  settled  in  a  "final" 
manner  every  decade  but  each  settlement  is  only  a  new  basis 
for  further  controversy.  The  facts  at  hand  have  always  proven 
sufficient  for  a  decision  but  not  sufficient  to  prevent  a  refutation 
of  that  decision  or  to  prevent  a  different  interpretation.  So 
in  the  case  of  the  authorship  of  the  Missouri  constitution  of 
1820,  there  has  always  existed  data  enough  to  warrant  a  con- 
viction, but,  curiously,  this  data  has  either  been  of  an  untrust- 
worthy character,  or  has  not  been  carefully  interpreted,  or  has 
been  entirely  passed  over  to  give  place  to  rumor.  The  evidence 
at  hand  is  today,  however,  sufficiently  strong  to  warrant  a 
scientific  investigation  and  discussion  of  this  subject. 

The  secondary  authorities  are  not  satisfactory,  advancing 
little  or  no  evidence  for  their  statements.^     Their  conclusions, 


1  Darby,  035.  cit.,  p.  28,  states  as  follows:  "The  most  important  provisions 
of  that  instrument  were  framed  by  David  Barton ;  and  from  that  day  to  the  present 
it  has  been  called  and  known  as  the  Barton  Constitution."  (Darby  published  his 
Recollections  in  1880.) 

Billon,  op.  cit.,  p.  106,  MM.,  who  probably  followed  Darby  on  this  point, 
says  the  constitution  was  "mostly  the  work  of  David  Barton."  (Billon  published 
his  Annals  of  180lf-21  in  1888.)     Houck,  III.  250,  agrees  with  Billon. 

Both  Darby  and  Billon  deserve  consideration  for  many  of  their  statements 
that  are  even  unsupported  with  evidence.  Both  were  contemporaries  and  partly 
makers  of  the  events  that  occurred  in  Missouri  history  almost  from  the  admission 
of  that  State  to  the  date  of  the  publication  of  their  works, — a  period  of  over 
half  a  century.  There  is,  therefore,  probably  some  element  of  value  in  the  fore- 
going quotations;  but  to  accept  these  statements  unquestioned  is  impossible. 

Switzler,  Carr,  and  Davis  and  Durrie  make  no  comment  on  the  authorship 
of  this  constitution. 

Hodder,  Side  Lights  on  the  Mo.  Compromise,  rejects  Darby  and  BiUon  regard- 
ing Barton's  authorship.  He  very  suggestively  writes:  "The  meagre  record  of 
the  Journal  furnishes  no  support  for  it.  It  would  seem  to  be  the  result  of  con- 
fusing the  authorship  of  the  constitution  with  the  name  given  to  the  convention 

M  S — 13  (193) 


194  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

therefore,  can  have  no  more  value  here  than  merely  to  corrobo- 
rate or  to  contradict  what  will  have  been  determined  on  better 
evidence.  And,  as  is  well  known,  neither  mere  corroboration 
nor  contradiction  adds  to  or  detracts  from  the  intrinsic  worth 
of  a  historical  fact. 

The  source  material  and  the  indirect  evidence  available 
are,  however,  very  valuable  and  are  of  a  trustworthy  character. 
The  former  is  confined  to  the  Journal  of  the  convention  and  to 
newspaper  articles:  the  latter  consists  principally  of  those 
biographical  facts  that  relate  to  the  personnel  of  the  convention. 
One  is  the  foundation  for  our  investigation,  the  other  supplements 
and  checks  the  former.  Both  are  so  closely  related  that  either 
would  be  unreliable  if  unsupported  by  the  other.  We  are, 
therefore,  forced  to  interpret  the  source  material  not  only  by 
what  it  seems  to  say  but  also  by  what  the  biographies  of  the 
delegates  will  permit  it  to  say.  Thus  the  acts  of  the  delegates 
in  the  convention  and  the  lives  of  these  men  outside  that  body 
enable  us  to  determine  in  a  general  way  the  authorship  of  Mis- 
souri's constitution  of  1820. 

In  determining  the  authorship  of  Missouri's  constitution 
of  1820  we  purpose  to  interpret  the  activity  of  the  delegates  on 
constitution  measures  in  four  ways.  First,  we  shall  determine 
what  delegates,  acting  as  individuals  and  not  as  committees, 
were  introducers  of  measures  on  which  no  vote  was  recorded; 
second,  what  delegates,  acting  in  their  individual  capacity,  were 
introducers  of  important  measures  on  which  votes  were  re- 
corded; third,  what  delegates  were  successful  and  what  were 
unsuccessful    in    voting   on    important    measures;    and    fourth. 


by  reason  of  Barton's  having  been  its  presiding  officer."  Hoddor  thinks  that 
Bates  was  the  leading  spirit  of  the  convention  and  by  being  chairman  of  the  com- 
mittee on  style  "occupies  with  reference  to  the  first  constitution  of  Missouri 
the  position  which  Gouveneur  Morris  occupies  with  rcforenco  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States."  (Am.  Jlist.  Assn.  Report,  1<)()«).  p.  l.W;  Mo.  Hist.  licrinv, 
V.  142.)  We  are  unable  to  accept  all  of  Hodder's  statements  regarding  Bates' 
relation  to  this  ctmstitution.  We  are  certain  that  Hoddor  ditl  not  make  a  careful 
examination  of  the  Journal  nor  was  he  sullicienlly  informed  regarding  the  per- 
sonnel of  the  convention.  We  appreciate,  however,  the  high  worth  of  the  remainder 
of  his  paper  and.  further,  that  this  question  of  the  authorship  of  Mi.ssouri's  first 
constitution  was  not  an  essential  part  of  Hodder's  study.  Our  objections  to 
Hodder's  explanation  of  the  constitution's  authorship  will  be  apparent  as  we 
proceed. 


Authorship  of  the  Missouri  Constitution.  195 

what   delegates   were    appointed    on    committees    that   drafted 
the  constitution .2 

The  convention  considered  and  decided  thirty-three  dif- 
ferent constitution  measures  on  which  no  vote  was  recorded. 
Of  these  thirty-three  measures  twenty-nine  were  important. 
These  measures  were  introduced  by  fifteen  delegates.  Bates 
introduced  five  measures:  two  of  these  were  important,  one 
only  relatively  important,  and  two  unimportant, — all  five  were 
adopted.^  McFerron  introduced  four  measures:  three  were 
important,  of  which  one  was  adopted,  and  one  unimportant, 
which  also  carried.^  The  single  important  measure  of  Mc- 
Ferron's  that  carried,  proved  immediately  to  be  the  initiatory 
measure  to  a  proposition  which  he  was  opposed  to  and  which 
was  adopted.  In  short,  McFerron's  one  conspicuous  victory 
proved  a  defeat.^  John  Cook  introduced  four  measures:  three 
were  important,  and  one  of  doubtful  significance, — all  four  were 
adopted.^     Scott,    Riddick   and    Perry,   each    introduced    three 


*  The  meagerness  of  the  Journal's  account  of  the  convention  makes  necessary 
such  a  detailed  manner  of  proof.  The  absence  of  speeches  and  letters  of  the  dele- 
gates on  this  subject  also  makes  essential  such  a  minute  analysis  of  the  votes  of 
the  delegates. 

'  Journal,  pp.  36,  38,  40,  42.  Bates'es  two  important  measures  were  the 
striking  out  of  the  constitution  a  section  which  made  it  commandatory  on  the 
legislatxu"e  to  suppress  duelling  and  a  section  which  made  judgments  confessed 
for  debt  or  damages  in  any  court  of  record  or  before  a  justice  of  the  peace,  as 
valid  as  judgments  rendered  in  the  ordinary  course  of  legal  proceedings.  His 
relatively  important  measure  provided  for  the  first  revision  of  the  laws  to  be  made 
within  three  years  instead  of  five.  One  of  Bates'  unimportant  measiires,  a  very 
interesting  one,  gave  the  name  "Declaration  of  Rights"  instead  of  its  previous 
designation,  "General  Provisions,"  to  those  fundamental  principles  of  individual 
liberty  that  are  so  deeply  imbedded  in  the  laws  of  English  speaking  people. 

*  Ibid.,  pp.  21,  25,  40,  43.  McFerron's  three  important  measures,  the  second 
of  which  was  adopted,  were  to  give  the  legislature  power  to  abolish  the  oflBce  of 
lieutenant-governor,  to  expressly  give  equity  jurisdiction  to  the  State  courts, 
and  to  insert  in  the  constitution  an  excellent  and  advanced  section  on  public 
schools,  which  section  also  included  an  educational  qualification  for  voters  after 
1841.  His  unimportant  measure  was  section  two  of  article  XIII.  of  the  constitu- 
tion. 

'  Ibid.,  p.  40.  McFerron  amended  the  first  section  of  the  article  on  the 
judiciary  so  as  to  expressly  give  equity  jiu-isdiction  to  the  State's  courts.  Bates 
then  established  the  oflice  of  chancellor,  which  was  opposed  by  ^McFerron. 

'Ibid.,  pp.  22,  31,  37,  44.  Cook's  amendment  relating  to  the  election  of 
sheriffs  and  coroners  is  not  clear  to  us.  His  three  important  measures  enlarged 
the  powers  of  the  permanent  seat  of  government  commissioners  that  were  to  be 
appointed  at  the  first  session  of  the  legislature,  reduced  the  minimum  size  of 
new  counties  from  six  hundred  and  twenty-five  square  miles  to  foiu-  hundred. 


196  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

important  measures.  All  of  Scott's  measures  were  adopted; 
two  of  Riddick's;  and  one  of  Perry's.^  Buckner,  Ramsay  and 
Hammond,  each  introduced  two  important  measures.  All  of 
Buckner's  and  Ramsay's  measures  and  one  of  Hammond's, 
were  adopted.^  Boone,  Dawson,  Jones,  Ray  and  Thomas, 
each  introduced  an  important  measure.  The  measures  of 
Dawson,  Jones  and  Ray  were  adopted;  part  of  Thomas'es 
carried;  and  Boone's  failed  to  carry.  Evans  introduced  a 
measure,  that  passed,  which  struck  out  an  unknown  section 
and  inserted  a  new  one.  The  new  section  was  later  struck 
out.^    The   fifteen  delegates  who  introduced   the   thirty-three 


and  included  section  2  of  article  X.  of  the  constitution,  which  conformed  to  the 
conditions  of  the  Enabling  Act  regarding  the  free  navigation  of  all  navigable 
streams  in  or  bordering  on  Missouri. 

»  Scott  was  the  author  of  the  clause  that  disqualified  United  States  soldiers 
from  voting  in  Missoviri,  of  the  section  that  empowered  the  legislature  to  determine 
the  salary  of  its  members,  and  of  both  sections  of  article  VI.  of  the  constitution 
which  related  to  the  establishment  of  a  public  school  system  and  a  state  university. 
(Journal,  pp.  35,  36,  37f.)  Scott  may  be  justly  called  the  father  of  Missouri's 
educational  system,  having  not  only  obtained  from  Congress  the  land  grants  for 
this  purpose  but  having  also  written  the  broad,  constitutional  provisions  governing 
these   grants. 

Riddick  was  the  author  of  the  clause  that  gave  the  legislature  power  to  change 
the  exclusive  original  jurisdiction  of  the  circuit  courts  in  civil  cases,  and  of  the 
clause  that  limited  the  number  of  branches  of  the  state  bank  to  five.  He  also 
introduced  a  measure  to  strike  out  the  clause  that  empowered  the  legislature  to 
pass  laws  permitting  slave-owners  to  emancipate  their  slaves.  This  was  lost. 
(Journal,  pp.   23,  30,  36.) 

Perry  was  the  author  of  the  four  year  term  for  senators.  He  introduced  a 
measure  striking  out  the  $2,000.00  a  year  minimum  salary  clause  for  judges, 
with  the  view  of  inserting  $1,600.00.  The  $2,000.00  was  struck  out,  but  $1,800.00 
was  inserted.  He  later  had  the  $1,800.00  struck  out,  but  $2,000.00  was  inserted 
despite  Perry's  opposition.  Thus  these  two  last  important  measures  of  Perry 
were  lost.  Perry  belonged  to  the  low-salary  faction  of  tlio  convention  that  fought 
hard,  though  unsuccessfully,  to  reduce  the  compensation  allowed  the  state  officers 
by  the  constitution.      (Journal,  pp.   16,  24,  40.) 

•  Buckner  introduced  one  measure  limiting  the  maxinuini  capital  stock  cf 
the  state  bank  to  five  million  dollars  and  another  excepting  priests  and  preachers 
from  being  subject  to  military  duty  or  from  being  compelled  to  bear  arms.  (Jour- 
nal, pp.  30,  42.)  Rain.say  introduced  one  measure  that  was  the  same  as  Buck- 
ner's regarding  bank  stock  and  another  that  proscribed  biennial  sessions  of  the 
legislature  and  the  time  of  meeting.  (Journal,  pp.  28.  37.)  Hammond  was  the 
author  of  a  measure  which  made  it  commandatory  on  the  legislature  to  suppress 
duelling.  After  thc^  passage  of  tlie  section.  Hates  liad  it  struck  out.  Hammond 
was  also  t\ui  autiior  of  thci  section  which  compelled  a  debtor  to  surrender  liis 
property  according  to  tlie  inarnier  i)r(>s(Til)e(i  by  law  if  he  expected  to  be  secure 
from  Imprlsonmtint  for  dc^bt.      (Journal,  pp.  '.U).  42.) 

•Boone  tried  to  have  the  temporary  .seat  of  government  established  at  St. 
Charles  Instead  of  at  St.  Louis.  His  measure  lost.  (Journal,  p.  32.)  Dawson  was 
the  author  of  the  thirty   year  minimum  ago  quallflcation   of  judges.      (Ibid.,  p. 


Authorship  of  the  Missouri  Constitution.  197 

measures  in  which  no  vote  was  recorded  fall  naturally  into  four 
classes.  The  first  class  consisted  of  Bates,  John  Cook  and 
Scott.  These  three  men  introduced  and  had  adopted  nine 
important  measures  and  three  unimportant  ones.  They  were 
the  authors  of  thirty-one  per  cent  of  the  important  measures 
introduced  and  of  fifty  per  cent  of  those  adopted.  Again,  they 
were  the  authors  of  seventy-five  per  cent  of  the  unimportant 
measures  introduced  and  adopted.  The  second  class  consisted 
of  Riddick,  Buckner  and  Ramsay.  These  delegates  introduced 
six  important  measures  of  which  five  were  adopted.  They 
were  the  authors  of  twenty-one  per  cent  of  the  important 
measures  introduced  and  of  twenty-eight  per  cent  of  those 
adopted.  The  third  class  consisted  of  Dawson,  Ray,  Hammond 
and  Perry.  These  four  men  introduced  seven  important 
measures  of  which  four  were  adopted.  They  were  the  authors 
of  twenty-four  per  cent  of  the  important  measures  introduced 
and  of  twenty-two  per  cent  of  those  adopted.  The  fourth 
class  consisted  of  Boone,  Evans,  Jones,  McFerron  and  Thomas. 
These  five  introduced  seven  important  measures  and  one  un- 
important one,  of  which  only  the  last  was  adopted.  They 
were  the  authors  of  twenty-four  per  cent  of  the  important 
measures  introduced  but  failed  to  have  one  adopted. 

These  figures  make  it  evident  that  the  principal  authors 
of  this  kind  of  adopted  measures  were  Bates,  John  Cook  and 
Scott.  The  individual  successful  average  of  each  of  the  dele- 
gates of  the  first  class  was  sixteen  and  two-thirds  per  cent;  of 
the  second  class  nine  and  one-third  per  cent;  of  the  third  class 
five  and  one-half  per  cent,  and  of  the  fourth  class,  0%.  The 
delegates  of  all  four  classes  were  men  of  ability  and  w^ere  active 
in  political  affairs.  Their  part  in  framing  Missouri's  con- 
stitution of  1820  would  have  been  a  very  important  one  had 
they   accomplished   nothing   more.     This   is  especially   true   of 


23.)  Jones  was  the  author  of  a  section  requiring  state  or  United  States  ofQcials 
to  resign  their  oflBce  fifteen  days  before  their  appointment  or  election  to  a  new 
office.  (Ibid.,  p.  17).  This  was  adopted  but  later  was  omitted  from  the  consti- 
tution. Ray  reduced  the  minimum  size  of  old  counties  from  twenty-five  miles 
square  to  twenty.  (Ibid.,  p.  37.)  For  Thomas'es  measures  see  Journal,  p.  26. 
For  Evan'es,  ibid.,  p.  27. 


198  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

Bates,  John  Cook  and  Scott,  and  in  a  degree  of  Riddick,  Buck- 
ner  and  Ramsay. ^^ 

The  convention  considered  and  decided  sixty-nine  consti- 
tution measures  on  which  the  vote  was  recorded.  Of  these 
measures,  forty-eight  were  important. ^^  Seven  of  these  had 
no  recorded  authors;  the  remaining  forty-one  were  introduced 
by  sixteen  delegates.  These  sixteen  delegates  fall  naturally 
into  two  classes:  those  who  were  able  to  have  some  of  their 
measures  adopted;  and  those  who  were  entirely  unsuccessful. 

The  first  class  consisted  of  five  delegates.  They  intro- 
duced fourteen  important  measures,  of  which  six  were  adopted. 
Bates  introduced  three  measures,  of  which  two  were  adopted. 
Buckner  introduced  five  measures,  of  which  one  was  adopted. 
John  Cook  introduced  two,  of  which  one  was  adopted.  Ham- 
mond introduced  three  and  won  one.  Scott  introduced  and 
won  one. ^2  These  five  delegates  were  the  authors  of  this  kind 
of    adopted    measures.     They    included    the    three    principal 


'"Barton's  ofiBcial  position  in  the  convention  or  his  political  astuteness  pro- 
hibited him  from  introducing  measures  in  person.  He  never,  however,  missed 
casting  a  vote. 

"  The  final  vote  on  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  is  not  included  in  these 
forty-eight  measures.  Only  McFerron  voted  against  the  adoption  of  the  con- 
stitution, so  that  no  trace  of  authorship  of  that  instrument  is  foundjin  this  vote. 

"  Bates  was  the  author  of  the  section  that  prohibited  the  establishing  of  a 
religious  corporation  and  of  the  section  that  established  the  office  of  chancellor. 
He  failed  to  have  struck  out  the  section  that  provided  for  the  removal  of  judges 
on  address  of  the  general  assembly.      {Journal,  pp.  26.  40,  41.) 

Buckner  had  struck  out  the  clause  that  provided  an  educational  qualifica- 
tion for  voters  after  1841.  He  failed  to  carry  the  following  provisions:  one 
for  a  one  year  term  for  representatives;  one,  for  a  six  year  term  for  judges;  one 
which  reduced  the  representation  of  certain  counties  by  one  representative;  and 
one  which  established  St.  Charles  instead  of  St.  Louis  as  the  first  meeting  place 
of  the  general  assembly.     {Journal,  pp.  34.  41.  43.  45,  46.) 

John  Cook  was  the  author  of  section  one,  article  XI.,  of  the  constitution 
which  prohibited  the  general  assembly  from  interfering  with  the  primary  dispospl 
of  the  soil  of  the  United  States,  and  from  taxing  non-resident  landowners  liighor 
than  resident  landowners.  He  failed  to  have  struck  out  Iho  chiuso  tnipowering 
the  general  assonihly  to  delay  judgments,  etc.  six  months.      {Journal,  pp.  2."^,  44.) 

Hammond  had  struck  out  a  clause  that  granted  the  logishiture  more  power 
in  emancipating  slaves.  {Journal,  p.  30.)  He  failed  to  have  struck  out  a  clause 
whi(;h  would  havc^  resulted  in  entirely  disqualifying  slate  .s»>nators  and  r(>prj>sont- 
atives  from  all  civil  olllces  excerpt  elective  ones  during  their  term.  He  alst>  failed  to 
have  adopted  aclau.se  whitth  would  have  (lualilhid  for  the  governorship  any  citizen 
of  the  United  Stat(vs  who  was  naturalized  at  the  time  of  the  cession  of  Louisiana. 
{Journal,  pp.  3r>,  39.) 

Scott  introduced  a  mc^asure  that  struck  out  St.  Louis  as  the  temporary  seat 
of  government  and  provided  only  for  the  first  meeting  of  the  general  assembly 
there  with  power  to  adjourn  elsewhere  till  1826.     This  carried.      {Journal,  p.  4r).) 


Authorship  of  the  Missouri  Constitution.  199 

authors  of  measures  on  which  no  vote  was  recorded,  Bates, 
John  Cook  and  Scott,  and  the  two  able  delegates  Buckner  and 
Hammond. 

The  second  class  consisted  of  eleven  delegates.  They 
introduced  twenty-seven  important  measures,  of  which  none 
was  adopted.  Dawson,  Emmons,  and  Riddick,  each  introduced 
one  measure;  Ramsay,  two;  Evans,  Findlay,  Green,  Jones, 
Perry  and  Thomas,  each,  three;  and  McFerron,  four.^-^  These 
eleven  delegates  could  not  have  left  an  impression  on  the  con- 
stitution by  these  measures. 

The  authorship  of  the  constitution  is  also  partly  revealed 
in  the  votes  cast  by  the  delegates  on  the  foregoing  forty-eight 
important  measures.  This  insight  into  the  constitution  is, 
however,  gained  in  an  indirect  way.  Of  these  forty-eight 
measures,  only  twelve  were  adopted,  and  of  these  twelve,  two 
were  nullified  by  negating  each  other  and  two  had  been  reported 
by  a  committee.  So  only  eight  new  measures  of  the  forty-eight 
important  measures  were  finally  incorporated  in  the  constitu- 


1'  Dawson  favored  empowering  the  legislature  to  suppress  duelling  by  making 
the  parties  fight  to  death  in  the  presence  of  appointed,  sworn  officers.  (Journal, 
p.  36.)  Emmons  favored  removing  the  disqualification  on  priests  and  preachers 
from  holding  public  office.  {Ibid.,  p.  16.)  Riddick  proposed  a  tax  qualification 
for  voters.  (Ibid.,  p.  34.)  Ramsay  proposed  to  abolish  the  court  of  chancery, 
and  to  strike  out  the  thirty  year  minimum  age  qualification  for  judges.  (Ibid., 
pp.  23,  41.)  Evans  favored  locating  the  permanent  seat  of  government  at  St. 
Louis  provided  St.  Louis  erected  the  state  buildings.  He  also  favored  an  eighteen 
year  minimum  age  qualification  for  voters,  and  viva  voce  voting.  (Ibid.,  pp. 
32,  34,  38.)  Findlay  opposed  with  two  measures  a  minimum  size  for  new  counties. 
With  a  third  measure  he  advocated  such  a  limitation  if  applied  to  those  counties 
lying  east  of  the  fifth  principal  meridian  line.  (Ibid.,  pp.  17,  37.)  Green  opposed 
disqualifying  priests  and  preachers  from  holding  public  office.  With  two  measures 
he  favored  individual  responsibility  of  stockholders  in  a  state  bank  for  the  debts 
of  the  bank.  (Ibid.,  pp.  30,  35,  43.)  Jones  opposed  giving  the  general  assembly 
power  to  change  the  term  and  tenure  of  the  sheriff  and  coroner.  He  favored  a 
section  that  prohibited  large  gifts  to  religious  orders  except  by  the  consent  of 
the  general  assembly.  He  also  favored  striking  out  that  clause  of  the  constitu- 
tion which  empowered  the  permanent  seat  of  government  commissioners  to  buy 
land  from  individuals.  (Ibid.,  pp.  22,  26,  31.)  Perry  attempted  with  three 
measures  to  lower  the  salary  of  the  Governor  and  the  Judges.  (Ibid.,  pp.  20,  24.) 
Thomas  favored  a  twenty-one  year  age  qualification  for  representatives  and  a 
twenty-five  year  age  qualification  for  senators.  He  favored  striking  out  that 
provision  in  the  constitution  which  empowered  the  legislature  to  provide  that 
emancipated  slaves  leave  the  State.  (Ibid.,  pp.  16,  18.)  McFerron  favored  a 
one  year  term  for  representatives.  He  advocated  with  two  measures  a  clause  that 
qualified  natiu-alized  citizens  of  the  United  States  for  the  governorship.  He 
desired  to  abolish  the  office  of  lieutenant  governor.     (Ibid.,  pp.  15,  20,  21,  39.) 


200  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

tion.^'*  Such  meager  data  would  be  of  little  value  for  our 
purpose  if  used  as  direct  evidence  on  the  authorship  of  the  con- 
stitution, but  if  used  as  indirect  proof  it  is  important.  The 
votes  of  the  delegates  on  the  forty-eight  important  questions 
show  to  a  great  degree  the  divisions  or  "line-up"  of  the  dele- 
gates in  the  convention.  These  votes  show  what  delegates 
were  successful  either  in  endorsing  the  committee's  reports  or 
in  amending  them,  and  what  delegates  were  unsuccessful  in 
their  voting.  An  analysis  of  the  votes  on  these  forty-eight 
measures  reveal  four  groups  of  delegates. 

The  first  group  of  delegates  was  composed  of  those  who  as 
individuals  were  successful  in  their  voting  in  a  ratio  ranging 
from  three  to  one  to  seven  to  one.  The  individuals  of  this 
group  cast  five  hundred  eighty-two  successful  votes  and  only  one 
hundred  thirty-three  unsuccessful  ones.  They  cast  forty-eight 
and  one-half  per  cent  of  the  successful  votes  and  only  twenty- 
five  per  cent  of  the  unsuccessful  ones.  This  group  was  composed 
of  seventeen  delegates.  They  were  Barton,  Bates,  Boone, 
Chouteau,  Clark,  Cleaver,  John  Cook,  Nathaniel  Cook,  Daw- 
son, Dodge,  Heath,  Rector,  Riddick,  Scott,  Sullivan,  Talbot, 
and  Wallace.  Only  four  of  these,  Barton,  Clark,  Nathaniel 
Cook  and  Riddick,  voted  on  all  forty-eight  measures.  Scott 
did  not  cast  a  vote  until  July  eleventh  and  missed  twenty-five 
of  the  forty-eight  votes;  Boone  and  Chouteau  each  missed 
seventeen  votes;  and  Heath  missed  fifteen  votes.  The  most 
successful  voters  of  this  class  were  Barton,  Chouteau,  the  two 
Cooks,   Dodge,   Rector,   and  Scott.     Of   these  seven   delegates 


•«  Six  of  the  adopted  measures  were  those  introduced  by  Bates,  John  Cook, 
Scott,  Buckner  and  Hammond.  The  other  six  adopted  had  no  recorded  authors. 
They  were  on  the  following  subjects:  providing  that  the  lieutenant-governor 
should  be  president  of  the  senate  and  have  a  vote  on  a  tie  (Journal,  p.  21) ;  lowering 
the  minimum  salary  of  judges  from  $2,000.00  to  $1,800.00  a  year  {Ibid.,  p.  24); 
adopting  the  original  mininuim  salary  of  $2,000.00  a  year  for  judges  {Ibid.,  pp. 
40f.);  providing  tliat  one-half  the  state  bank  stock  should  be  reserved  to  the 
State  {Ibid.,  p.  2H.);  adopting  Findlay's  committee's  bank  article,  tlie  one  llnally 
included  in  the  constitution  {Ibid.,  p.  :10.);  adopting  the  permanent  seat  of  g()vern- 
ment  article  as  niportcul  by  tlie  committee  and  as  amended  by  John  Cook,  and  as 
finally  incorporattid  in  tim  (constitution  {Ibid.,  p.  32.).  One  measure  on  which 
the  vote  is  recorded  was  lost.  This  provided  that  the  temporary  seat  of  govern- 
ment be  at  I'otosi  instead  of  at  St.  Louis.  Tho  autlior  of  this  measure  was  not 
recorded.     {Ibid.,  p.  45.) 


Authorship  of  the  Missouri  Constitution.  201 

Barton,  Chouteau,  John  Cook,  Rector  and  Scott  stood  highest 
in  their  voting  average. 

The  second  group  of  delegates  was  composed  of  those  who 
as  individuals  were  successful  in  their  voting  in  a  ratio  ranging 
from  two  to  one  to  two  and  one-half  to  one.  The  individuals 
of  this  group  cast  three  hundred  and  forty-one  successful  votes  and 
one  hundred  and  fifty-eight  unsuccessful  ones.  They  cast  twenty- 
eight  and  one-half  per  cent  of  the  successful  votes  and  twenty- 
nine  per  cent  of  the  unsuccessful  ones.  This  group  was  com- 
posed of  eleven  delegates.  They  were  Baber,  Brown,  Evans, 
Findlay,  Green,  Henry,  Hutchings,  Jones,  Lillard,  Perry  and 
Pratte.  Only  three  of  these.  Brown,  Jones  and  Perry,  voted 
on  all  forty-eight  measures.  Baber  missed  fifteen  of  the  forty- 
eight  votes.  The  most  successful  voters  of  this  class  were 
Evans,  Findlay,  Green  and  Jones.  None  of  these  four  delegates 
was,  however,  as  successful  as  any  of  the  delegates  in  the  first 
class. 

The  third  class  of  delegates  was  composed  of  those  who  as 
individuals  were  successful  about  half  the  time  in  their  voting. 
The  individual  delegates  of  this  group  cast  two  hundred  and 
thirty-one  successful  votes  and  one  hundred  and  eighty-eight 
unsuccessful  ones.  They  cast  twenty  per  cent  of  the  successful 
votes  and  thirty-three  per  cent  of  the  unsuccessful  ones.  This 
group  was  composed  of  ten  delegates.  They  were  Bettis,  Buck- 
ner,  Burckhartt,  Hammond,  Houts,  McNair,  Ramsay,  Ray, 
Reeves,  and  Thomas.  Only  two  of  these,  Burckhartt  and 
Houts,  voted  on  all  forty-eight  measures.  Buckner  missed  nine- 
teen and  Thomas  eighteen  of  the  forty-eight  votes.  The  most 
successful  voters  of  this  class  were  Buckner,  Burckhartt,  Houts 
and  Ray.  None  of  these  stood,  however,  as  high  as  any  dele- 
gate in  the  second  class  on  this  point. 

The  fourth  class  was  composed  of  three  delegates  who  were 
very  unsuccessful  in  their  voting.  The  individual  delegates 
of  this  class  cast  thirty-eight  successful  votes  and  sixty-six  un- 
successful ones.  They  cast  three  per  cent  of  the  successful 
votes  and  thirteen  per  cent  of  the  unsuccessful  ones.  The 
delegates  in   this  group  were   Byrd,   Emmons  and   McFerron. 


202  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

Emmons  voted  only  nine  times,  missing  thirty-nine  of  the 
forty-eight  votes  taken. 

An  analysis  of  the  foregoing  data  relating  to  the  votes 
recorded  on  the  forty-eight  important  measures  reveals  the 
following  facts  concerning  the  authorship  of  the  constitution. 
First,  the  convention  sustained  its  committees  in  their  reports 
on  the  constitution  and  permitted  few  alterations.  The  con- 
vention adopted  only  eight  new  measures  of  the  forty-eight 
important  ones  proposed.  The  leaders  behind  this  movement 
for  "regularity"  were  Barton,  Bates,  John  Cook,  Findlay  and 
Rector. ^^  Although  Chouteau  and  Scott  were  successful  voters, 
their  influence  on  the  constitution  was  lessened  in  this  respect 
by  their  long  absences  from  the  convention.  Second,  aiding 
this  "regularity"  and  the  leaders,  was  a  majority  of  the  dele- 
gates. Third,  opposing  these  leaders  in  a  conservative  way 
were  ten  delegates,^®  all  men  of  ability  and  political  experience. 
The  leader  of  this  opposition  was  Buckner.  His  activity  on 
the  floor  in  advocating  changes  in  the  reports  of  the  various 
committees  and  his  ability  in  securing  some  of  his  alterations 
adopted,  both  prove  this  leadership.  Ranking  next  to  Buckner 
in  this  work  was  Perry.  Perry  was  the  watchdog  of  the  treasury 
and  the  low-salary  man  of  the  convention.  These  men  and  their 
assistants  were  not,  however,  able  to  accomplish  much.  And 
fourth,  opposing  the  leaders  of  the  convention  in  a  radical 
manner  were  three  delegates, ^^  who  were  hopelessly  unsuccessful. 

The  convention  by  adopting  the  committee  method  of 
procedure  delegated  great  powers  to  few  men.  Although  the 
various  committees'  drafts  of  the  constitution  were  referred 
for  discussion  to  the  committee  of  the  whole  or  to  the  convention 
and  were  there  subject  to  alteration,  adoption  or  rejection,  still 
the  original  sections  contained  in  these  drafts  were  given  more 
respect  and  consideration  than  substitute  provisions  received. 
Unless  an  officer  or  a  committee  fairly  and  democratically 
chosen  by  a  body  of  men,  is  flagrantly  incompetent  or  corrupt, 


"  Barton,  John  Ciook  and  Roctor  show  this  in  their  successful  voting  against 
innovations.  Bates  and  Kiiuilay  do  tiiis  by  a  coniparatlvoly  high  voting  average 
and  ospoclaliy  by  tlicir  prominent  committee  positions. 

»•  See  supra,  class  three. 

"  See  supra,  class  four. 


Authorship  of  the  Missouri  Constitution.  203 

the  acts  and  reports  of  such  officer  or  committee  are  generally 
approved  by  the  appointors;  and  this  is  especially  true  of  con- 
servative, deliberative  bodies.  The  reason  for  this  tendency 
is  found  not  only  in  the  economy  of  time  and  effort  that  it 
effects,  but  also  in  the  unseen  and  usually  unappreciated  halo 
of  semi-authority  that  invests  these  acts  or  reports.  And  this 
semi-authority  is  greatly  increased  in  influence  when  the  con- 
stituted officer  and  the  members  of  the  committees  are  the 
leaders  among  their  fellow-delegates  in  debate,  deliberation, 
conversation  and  writing.  Such  was  the  condition  in  Mis- 
souri's first  constitutional  convention. 

This  ascendancy  of  the  committee  in  the  Missouri  con- 
vention of  1820  is  conclusively  proven  by  the  few  changes  made 
by  that  convention  in  the  constitution  as  reported  by  the  com- 
mittees. Of  the  thirty-three  measures  introduced  on  which 
no  votes  were  recorded,  twenty-nine  were  important.  Of  these 
twenty-nine  measures,  eighteen  were  finally  incorporated  in 
the  constitution.  Of  the  sixty-eight  measures  introduced  on 
which  the  votes  were  recorded,  forty-eight  were  important. 
Of  these  forty-eight  measures,  only  eight  new  ones  were  incor- 
porated in  the  constitution.  Thus  of  the  hundreds  of  clauses 
in  the  original  constitution  as  reported  by  the  committees, 
only  twenty-six  measures  were  amended  or  added  to. 

The  greatest  statesman,  the  leading  and  one  of  the  most 
skillful  politicians,  the  ablest  orator  and  debater  and  the  most 
popular  public  man  in  Missouri  in  1820,  was  chosen  president 
of  the  convention.  Both  by  virtue  of  his  position  and  of  his 
talents,  David  Barton  was  the  leading  spirit  and  the  most 
influential  man  in  the  convention.  He  was  given  the  power 
of  appointing  all  committees  and  this  power  was  never  limited 
by  the  delegates.  Possessed  of  such  authority,  endowed  with 
great  ability,  and  having  an  inclination  to  exercise  both.  Barton 
exerted  a  most  significant  influence  in  the  drafting  and  adopting 
of  many  provisions  in  the  constitution.  If  to  one  man  were  to 
be  accorded  the  honor  of  drafting  the  Missouri  constitution  of 
1820,  that  man  would  be  David  Barton.  As  a  singular  proof 
of  Barton's  influence  even  on  the  floor  of  the  convention  is  the 
fact  that  his  vote  on  a  constitutional  measure  was  practically 


204  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

identical  with  the  adoption  or  rejection  of  that  measure.  Fur- 
ther, an  analysis  of  the  voting  based  on  whether  the  votes  cast 
were  Barton  or  anti-Barton  votes,  gives  the  same  results  and 
divides  the  delegates  into  the  same  four  classes  as  are  obtained 
when  the  votes  are  analyzed  from  the  standpoint  of  their  being 
successful  or  unsuccessful  votes  on  constitutional  measures. 

Associated  with  Barton  in  framing  the  constitution  in  the 
committees  were  seven  of  his  friends,  John  Rice  Jones,  John 
D.  Cook,  Edward  Bates,  James  Evans,  John  Scott,  Jonathan 
Smith  Findlay,  and,  to  some  extent,  Jonathan  Ramsay. ^^ 
The  first  five  of  these  were  lawyers;  Findlay  was  a  schoolmaster- 
politician;  and  Ramsay,  a  successful  farmer,  a  shrewd  business 
man  and  a  politician  combined:  all  were  aspirants  for  political 
honors.  These  men  were  not  only  active  on  the  floor  of  the 
convention  but,  excepting  Scott,  they  filled  all  the  places  on 
the  two  principal  constitutional  committees,  and  two  of  them 
held  the  chairmanship  of  the  two  most  important  minor  com- 
mittees.^^ 

Of  the  forty-one  delegates  Jones  was  easily  the  most  learned, 
the  most  highly  educated,  the  most  accomplished,  and  perhaps 
the  most  successful  financially.  One  of  the  oldest  men  in  the 
convention,  Jones  possessed  the  best  trained  and  the  deepest 
mind  in  that  body.  It  is,  therefore,  not  surprising  that  Barton 
appointed  him  chairman  of  the  select  committee,  the  first 
and  only  committee  to  draft  a  complete  constitution  for  Mis- 
souri in   1820  that  was    printed    and   discussed  by  the  conven- 

'•  Although  these  men  did  not  vote  together  on  all  measures,  they  had  many 
views  in  common  and  were  friends.  Ramsay  was.  perhaps,  loss  under  the  sway 
of  Barton  than  any  of  the  seven.  Jones  was  more  of  a  colleague  than  a  lieutenant 
of  Barton. 

••The  first  four  committees  appointed  to  draft  a  constitution  were  of  no 
importance.  Their  reports  were  never  read  by  the  convention  or  printjnl.  The 
select  committee  was  given  practically  unlimited  power  in  eiianging  tliese  reports. 
We  also  do  not  regard  the  land  committee  on  tlie  permanent  seat  of  government. 
compo.sed  of  ('ook  of  .Ste.  (ienevieve.  Pratto  and  Dawson,  of  any  importance  in 
regard  to  the  authorship  of  the  constitution,  since  this  report  was  tabled  and  never 
later  considered.  The  committee  on  enrollment  was  purely  a  ch>rieal  body  tliat 
was  created  simply  to  see  that  the  constitution  was  correctly  engrossed  and  en- 
rolled as  it  had  been  passed.  The  membership  of  tliis  eoniinittee  was  tl»e  same 
as  that  of  the  committee  on  style  except  that  Findlay  wa.s  cliainnan  of  the  former 
and  Bates  of  the  latter. 


Authorship  of  the  Missouri  Constitution.  205 

tion.2o  The  constitution  reported  by  this  committee  was  the 
ground  plan  that  guided  the  delegates  in  framing  and  adopting 
Missouri's  first  constitution.  Jones  was  also  appointed  chair- 
man of  the  committee  on  schedule  and  banking,  whose  report 
was  largely  adopted  by  the  convention  so  far  as  it  related  to 
purely  schedule  provisions  and  to  the  permanent  seat  of  govern- 
ment.2^ 

The  co-workers  of  Jones  on  the  select  committee  were 
Evans,  John  D.  Cook  and  Ramsay.  The  appointment  of  Evans 
to  this  committee  was,  we  believe,  largely  a  result  of  Barton's 
friendship  for  him.  Both  were  boon  companions,  both  enjoyed 
the  cup,  both  were  able  lawyers  and  were  about  the  same  age, 
and  both  were  at  this  time  very  popular  in  Missouri.  It  is 
a  sad  commentary  on  the  lives  of  Barton  and  Evans  that  both 
later  became  mental  and  financial  wrecks.  The  logical  delegate 
for  Evan's  place  on  the  select  committee  was  General  William 
V.  Rector,  the  chairman  of  the  original  committee  on  the 
executive  department.  Barton  and  his  friends  probably  did 
not  trust  Rector  or  could  not  rely  on  his  support.  The  fatal 
rupture  between  these  men  may  have  had  its  inception  about 
this  time.  Just  three  years  and  one  week  after  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  select  committee,  Joshua  Barton,  elder  brother  of 
David,  was  killed  by  T.  C.  Rector,  brother  of  William  V.,  in  a 
duel,  which  was  caused  by  the  former  charging  General  Rector 
of  corruption  in  office:  and  one  year  and  one  day  later  through 
the  efforts  of  Senator  Barton,  General  William  V.  Rector  was 
dishonorably  dismissed  from  office  by  the  head  of  the  United 
States  General  Land  Office,  acting  on  order  of  the  President  of 
the   United  States.^^ 

The  appointment  of  John  D.  Cook  was  also  a  pleasant  and 
politic  act  of  Barton's.  The  logical  appointee  for  Cook's  place 
was  Judge  Richard  S.  Thomas,  chairman  of  the  original  com- 

»o  Jones  had  previously  been  appointed  chairman  of  the  legislative  committee, 
one  of  the  four  committees  whose  reports  were  handed  over  to  the  select  com- 
mittee. 

2'  The  other  members  of  the  schedvile  committee  were  Houts  and  McFerron. 
Judging  from  the  barren  results  that  McFerron  obtained  on  the  floor  of  the  con- 
vention, it  is  not  probable  that  he  was  able  to  thwart  Jones  on  this  committee. 
Little  is  known  of  Houts  except  that  he  was  a  merchant  at  this  time. 

"■"'Edwards  Great   West,  p.  332;  Afo.  Intell.,  July  31,  1824. 


206  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

mittee  on  the  judiciary.  Thomas'  insurgent  activity  in  trying 
to  get  the  reports  of  the  four  original  committees  read  before 
the  convention  was  undoubtedly  displeasing  to  the  self-appointed 
leaders  of  that  body.  On  the  other  hand,  John  D.  Cook  was 
loyal,  was  endowed  with  great  ability,  and  with  the  aid  of  his 
elder  brother,  Nathaniel,  who  was  also  a  delegate,  wielded  a 
remarkable  influence.^^  Although  a  young  man,  being  barely 
thirty  years  old,  John  D.  Cook  was  the  only  delegate  that  was 
a  member  of  both  the  select  committee  and  the  committee  on 
style.  He  was  also  preeminent  among  the  delegates  in  holding 
the  largest  number  of  constitution  committee  places,  being  a 
member  of  four  committees  and  chairman  of  another,^*  and  in 
being  one  of  the  two  delegates  later  appointed  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Missouri.25  John  Cook  and  Scott  shared  the  distinc- 
tion of  being  the  only  delegates  who  ranked  foremost  in  the 
convention  in  being  introducers  of  adopted  measures  on  which 
no  votes  were  recorded,  in  being  introducers  of  adopted  measures 
on  which  votes  were  recorded,  and  in  being  leaders  in  casting 
successful  votes. 

While  Evans  and  John  Cook  worked  in  harmony  with 
Barton,  as  is  easily  seen  in  a  survey  of  the  votes  recorded  in  the 
Journal  on  the  most  important  measures  of  the  constitution, 
Ramsay  seems  to  have  maintained  an  independent  attitude 
toward  the  lawyer  junto.  In  fact,  it  is  difficult  to  ascertain 
why  General  Jonathan  Ramsay  was  appointed  on  the  select 
committee  instead  of  General   Duff  Green.-^     This  may  have 


»•  Both  Evans  and  the  Cooks  were  consistent  supporters  of  Barton. 

•«  Member  of  original  judiciary  committee,  select  commiitoe.  committee  on 
style,  committee  on  enrollment:  chairman  of  public  land  committco  on  perman  .»nt 
seat  of  government. 

"  Cook  was  appointed  one  of  the  first  three  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Missouri  in  1820  by  (Jovernor  McNair  and  again  in  1822,  after  a  constitutional 
amendment  had  passed  that  vacated  tin;  Supreme  and  Circuit  Court  Judgeships. 
He  resigned  in  182:^  and  in  182r)  was  appointed  to  the  soutiu'ru  circuit  of  Mi.ssouri 
after  its  former  incumbent,  Richard  S.  Thomas,  had  bt>cn  inipt>ached.  It  is 
interesting  to  note  that  Thomas'  chief  advocate  in  his  impeacinnent  trial  was 
John  D.  Cook.  (Mo.  Gazette,  Doc.  6,  1820;  Mo.  JntelL,  Dec.  31,  1822.  Feb.  1. 
1825;  Houck,  op.  cit..  III.  10.) 

"  The  original  committee  on  the  bill  of  rights,  etc.,  was  composed  of  Ramsay. 
JIammond  and  (Jrecm.  One  of  these  was  to  be  appointed  on  the  select  committee: 
Barton  cho.se  Kamsay.  llaintnond  was  an  impossihh'  appointee  owing  to  the 
selection  of  .loners.  Evans  and  Cook,  who  all  canui  from  count i(>s  lying  soutli  of 
the  Mis.souri  River.     It  would  have  been  obviously  impolitic  to  have  ai)pointed 


Authorship  of  the  Missouri  Constitution.  207 

been  done  by  Barton  for  fear  that  Ramsay,  who  really  deserved 
the  place,  would  otherwise  feel  insulted  and  wield  his  great 
influence  in  opposing  important  measures  of  the  leaders.^^ 
If  this  was  the  purpose  of  Barton  and  his  friends,  of  placating 
Ramsay,  it  was  only  partly  successful.^^  Ramsay's  activity  in 
the  convention  was  directed  towards  realizing  the  wishes  of  his 
pioneer  constituents,  regardless  of  the  approbation  or  criticism 
of  the  St.  Louis  and  south-east  Missouri  delegates.  Ramsay 
tried,  however,  to  have  struck  out  the  thirty  year  minimum 
age  qualification  for  judges.  This  was  entirely  for  the  advan- 
tage of  Bates  who  was  only  twenty-six  years  of  age  at  that  time 
and  who  was  a  very  probable  candidate  for  appointment  to  the 
Supreme  Court  bench,  if  Governor  Clark  were  elected. ^^  Green 
was  also  under  thirty  years  of  age  but  was  more  inclined  towards 
business  than  law.  However,  the  machinery  and  the  mind  of 
the  convention  when  opposed  to  Ramsay,  was  successful,  and 
his  influence  was  relatively  small  in  the  framing  of  the  consti- 
tution. 

In  striking  contrast  to  Ramsay  was  the  youthful  Edward 
Bates.  The  latter  had  not  yet  attained  the  age  of  twenty- 
seven  years,  and  under  the  constitution  that  he  w^as  so  instru- 


the  fourth  member  of  this  committee  from  that  section.  It  wets  essential  to  have 
on  the  select  committee  at  least  one  representative  of  the  northern  pioneer  coun- 
ties. Ramsay  was  perhaps  a  stronger  man  for  the  place  than  Green.  Ramsay 
was  at  this  time  forty-five  years  old,  possessed  a  commanding  personality,  and 
had  great  business  ability.  His  military  and  civil  record  in  Kentucky  was  dis- 
tinguished, and,  despite  his  lack  of  education,  he  was  a  leader  not  to  be  ignored 
or  antagonized.  Besides,  Ramsay  was  the  type  of  man  who  could  cast  more 
votes  on  the  floor  than  in  the  committee.  Green,  on  the  other  hand,  was  only 
twenty-nine  years  old,  and  although  a  man  of  good  education  and  a  member  of 
the  bar,  had  the  faculty  of  making  enemies  faster  than  friends.  Even  in  his  own 
county,  Howard,  Green  by  his  fearlessness  and  his  many  enterprises  had  aroused 
much  opposition.  Green  was  also  not  pleasing  to  the  St.  Louis  politicians  in 
his  stand  for  very  conservative  guards  being  imposed  on  stockholders  of  the  state 
bank.  He  was,  however,  the  superior  of  Ramsay  in  versatility  and  intellect,  and 
later  played  an  important  part  in  the  nation's  history. 

*'  Ramsay  was  so  outvoted  on  this  committee  that  he  was  helpless  in  thwart- 
ing the  will  of  Barton  and  others,  and  his  appointment  was  no  risk  in  this  respect. 

»«  Ramsay  opposed  the  following  important  measures  that  were  advocated 
by  the  lawyer  leaders:  S2,000.00  salary  for  the  governor  («/.,  p.  20);  a  court  of 
Chancery,  composed  on  one  Chancellor  {J.,  pp.  23,  40,  41);  high  salary  for  judges 
(«/.,  p.  24);  state  bank  (J.,  pp.  29,  30);  and  favored  individual  responsibility  of 
stockholders  of  state  bank  (J.,  p.  30)  and  viva  voce  voting  (J.,  p.  38),  both  of  which 
were  opposed  by  Barton  and  some  of  his  friends. 

*>  Journal,  p.  41. 


208  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

mental  in  framing  he  was  in  1820  disqualified  by  his  youth  from 
being  governor,  lieutenant-governor,  state  senator,  judge  of  a 
circuit  court,  supreme  court  judge,  or  chancellor.  Despite  his 
age  Bates  was  appointed  as  chairman  of  the  committee  on  style, 
which  in  importance  ranked  next  to,  if  it  did  not  equal,  the 
select  committee.  By  order  of  the  convention  every  article 
and  section  of  the  constitution  after  passing  through  the  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  was  entrusted  to  this  committee  for  proper 
revision.  Its  impress  was,  therefore,  left  on  every  part  of  that 
instrument.  In  appointing  Bates  at  the  head  of  the  committee 
on  style  Barton  not  only  filled  an  important  place  with  a  devoted 
friend  and  admirer  but  also  with  a  remarkably  gifted  politician 
and  lawyer.  A  man  of  high  ideals,  strong  character,  well- 
poised  independence,  fearless  courage,  and  of  almost  unlimited 
intellectual  capacity,  Bates  was  a  fitting  choice  to  do  the  last 
constructive  work  on  Missouri's  first  constitution  and  to  perfect 
and  polish  that  document  for  future  generations.^*^ 

The  other  members  of  the  committee  on  style,  John  D. 
Cook  and  Jonathan  Smith  Findlay,  were  also  exceptionally 
able  men.  The  latter,  who  alone  of  these  three  has  not  been 
considered,  was  a  man  of  fine  education,  rare  intellectual  at- 
tainments, and  high  moral  principles.  Engaged  at  this  time  in 
school  teaching,  Findlay  appears  to  have  wielded  considerable 
influence  in  the  Boone's  Lick  county,  and  was  greatly  respected 
for  his  ability  as  a  writer  and  for  his  courage  as  a  man.^^  His 
last  public  office  was  that  of  register  of  the  land  office  at  Lex- 
ington, Missouri,  which  he  held  until  two  years  before  his  death. 
Three  of  his  brothers  were  Congressmen  from  Pennsylvania 
and  Ohio,  and  one  held  the  two  highest  offices  in  the  gift  of  the 
former  state,  being  elected  Governor  and  later  United  States 
Senator."'^  Findlay  enjoyed  the  full  confidence  of  Barton  and 
was  appointed  on  two  other  committees,  being  chairman  of  both 
the  committee  on  enrollment  and  the  very  important  committee 
on  a  state  bank  and  branches.     The  reports  of  both  these  com- 


*o  Besides  beiiif?  aj)i)()int('(l  on  the  coinniit tee  on  style.  Hates  was  also  a  niembor 
of  the  original  committee  on  the  judiciary  and  of  tlu^  committee  on  enrollment. 
«'  Mo.   Intrll.,  .luly    Hi.    1819;  Mar.    19.    1821;   Nov.    10.    1832. 
•«  Ibid..  Nov.   10.   18.32. 


Authorship  of  the  Missouri  Constitution.  209 

mittees  were  adopted  by  the  convention  without  further  un- 
necessary change,  a  compliment  to  their  makers.  The  mem- 
bers of  the  latter  committee  besides  Findlay  were  Benjamin 
H.  Reeves  of  Howard  and  Colonel  Thomas  F.  Riddick  of  St. 
Louis.  Reeves  was  one  of  the  leading  men  in  north  Missouri, 
was  repeatedly  elected  state  senator,  and  became  Missouri's 
second  lieutenant-governor.^^  Riddick  was  the  greatest  of  the 
founders  of  the  St.  Louis  public  school  system.  His  official 
career  in  Missouri  began  in  1804  and  continued  till  his  death 
in  1830.  He  was  probably  the  author  of  the  article  in  the 
constitution  on  the  state  bank,  as  his  experience  in  that  line 
was  more  extended  than  that  of  either  Findlay  or  Reeves.^"* 

Although  a  member  of  no  committee,  the  Honorable  John 
Scott,  a  delegate  from  Ste.  Genevieve,  was  very  instrumental 
in  the  drafting  of  one  entire  article  and  several  important 
sections  of  the  constitution.  To  Scott  belongs  the  great  honor 
of  being  the  author  of  Missouri's  excellent  constitutional  pro- 
visions relating  to  education.^^  It  was  indeed  appropriate 
that  a  university  graduate  should  have  been  permitted  by  for- 
tune to  be  the  one  who  not  only  obtained  the  large  grants  of 
public  land  that  made  possible  the  establishment  of  a  great 
public  school  system  of  education  in  Missouri  with  a  state 
university  at  its  head  but  who  also  drafted  and  had  adopted  the 
fundamental  provisions  in  that  commonwealth's  first  constitu- 
tion that  safeguarded  the  treasures  and  encouraged  their  eco- 
nomic conservation,  on  which  Missouri's  present  free  public 
school  system  and  state  university  were  founded. ^^  And,  if  we 
may  be  pardoned  for  a  digression,  equally  appropriate  was  it 
that  another  university  graduate,  James  S.  Rollins,  was  later 
given  the  honor  of  fathering  the  bill  that  created  the  university 
that  had  been  so  carefully  provided  for  by  Missouri's  last  terri- 
torial Delegate  and  her  first  United  States  Representative  in 


^''Official  Manual  Mo.,  1913-14,  pp.  103,  150flf;  Mo.  IntelL,  Oct.  3,  1835. 

"Billon,  op.  cit.,  pp.  188f;  Edwards  Great  West,  pp.  309ff;  Mo.  Gazette,  April 
20,  1820,  May  3,  1820,  May  12,  1821;  Darby,  op.  cit.,  pp.  14,  18;  Houck,  op  cit., 
II.  pp.  383,  418,  III.  pp.  49,  71,  103.  Riddick  had  been  the  largest  stockholder 
and  was  the  second  president  of  the  old  Missouri  Bank  of  St.  Louis. 

»  J.,  p.  38. 

"  Scott  graduated  from  Princeton  University  in  1802. 

M  S— 14 


210  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

Congress.  Scott  was  also  the  author  of  an  important  provision 
in  the  constitution  that  imposed  a  Hmitation  on  gerrymandering 
in  the  estabUshing  of  senatorial  districts.^^  He  also  secured 
the  adoption  of  a  clause  that  disqualified  United  States  soldiers 
and  sailors  in  regular  service  from  voting  in  this  state,^^  and 
was  the  author  of  that  section  of  the  constitution  that  pro- 
vided for  the  compensation  of  the  members  of  the  legislature.^^ 
Together  with  John  D.  Cook,  Scott  secured  the  adoption  of 
that  section  of  the  constitution  that  provided  for  the  temporary 
seat  of  government.'*^  On  this  last  measure,  the  voting  was 
sectional:  all  the  St.  Louis  and  the  northern  county  delegates 
except  three  were  opposed  by  all  the  southern  representatives 
except  one.  Even  Barton's  and  Bates'  friends,  as  John  Cook, 
Evans,  Scott,  Jones,  and  many  others  aligned  themselves  on 
this  proposition  against  St.  Louis  and  her  politicians,  and 
succeeded  in  leaving  the  question  of  the  temporary  seat  of 
government  an  open  one  in  the  hands  of  the  legislature  instead 
of  deciding  in  favor  of  St.  Louis,  which  had  been  previously 
selected  by  the  convention.  On  other  questions,  Scott  voted 
with  the  lawyers  as  a  rule.  Considering  the  few  days  that 
Scott's  name  appears  among  the  ayes  and  nays,  he  was  re- 
markably active  and  successful  in  the  convention.''^ 

As  a  politician  and  a  lawyer,  John  Scott  was  able,  con- 
scientious, and  popular.  Although  not  a  brilliant  speaker  like 
Barton  or  even  Bates,  he  was  a  formidable  opponent  in  debate. 
His  superior  education,  scholarly  habits,  his  perfect  mastery 
of  law  and  history,  his  attention  to  details,  and  his  moral 
scruples,  frequently  enabled  him  to  overcome  more  gifted 
orators  and  advocates.  His  friendship  for  Barton  and  Benton 
was  a  close  one,  and  Benton's  rupture  with  him  over  the  Adams- 
Jackson  contest  inflicted  a  cruel  wound  to  both. 

The  framing  of  Missouri's  constitution  of  1820  was  not  the 
work  of  one  man.     The  principal  authors  were  Barton,  Bates, 

"J.,   p.  34. 

»•  Ibid. 

**  Ibid.,  p.  30. 

*oJ..  pp.  45f. 

«'  Scott's  name  docs  not  appear  In  the  aye  and  nay  voting  until  July  11th, 
on  which  day  the  convention  began  the  consideration  of  tlic  report  of  the  com- 
mitteo  on  style.   (J.,  pp.  33 (T.) 


Authorship  of  the  Missouri  Constitution.  211 

John  Cook,  Jones,  Findlay  and  Scott.  These  six  delegates 
held  first  place  as  introducers  of  measures,  as  voters  in  the  con- 
vention, and  as  members  of  the  three  most  important  com- 
mittees— the  select  committee,  the  committee  on  style,  and  the 
committee  on  a  state  bank.  Barton  was  the  leader  both  of  the 
legally  organized  convention  and  of  the  political  machine  of 
that  body.  He  wielded,  therefore,  the  most  important  influence 
of  all  the  delegates  on  the  constitution.  Bates,  John  Cook, 
Jones  and  Findlay,  were  the  great  organizers  and  committeemen 
of  the  convention.  Scott  was  the  one  conspicuous  delegate 
who,  not  holding  a  committee  place,  was  able  to  accomplish 
things  on  the  floor  of  the  convention.  Of  these  six  delegates, 
five  were  lawyers,  and  one,  Findlay,  was  a  pedagogue-politician. 
All  were  remarkably  able  men.  They  later  held  political  posi- 
tions ranging  in  importance  from  that  of  register  of  a  land  office 
to  that  of  United  States  Senator  and  of  United  States  cabinet 
official. 

The  next  set  of  delegates  in  importance  was  Evans,  Ramsay, 
Riddick,  Reeves,  Rector  and  Green.  Their  impress  on  the 
constitution  was,  however,  comparatively  slight.  Some  were 
followers  of  the  "organization;"  several  were  independent  but 
not  hostile  to  the  leaders.  All  were  able  men  and  were  ambitious. 
Their  biographies  reveal  six  successful  politicians  who  held 
offices  ranging  from  that  of  state  representative  to  that  of 
national  political  boss. 

The  third  class  of  delegates  who  may  possibly  have  influenced 
the  framing  of  the  constitution  was  Buckner,  Perry  and  Ham- 
mond. These  three  delegates  were  leaders  of  the  opposition. 
They  were  seemingly  unable  to  accomplish  much,  but  it  is  not 
improbable  that  some  compromise  measures  were  adopted 
through  their  influence.  These  men  were  well  equipped  both 
in  ability  and  in  experience.  Their  success  in  the  convention 
was  not,  however,  striking.  The  "machine"  under  the  direc- 
tion of  the  leaders  was  able  to  accomplish  nearly  everything 
it  desired.  Barton,  Bates,  John  Cook,  Jones,  Findlay  and  Scott, 
were  the  principal  authors  of  the  constitution  of  Missouri  of 
1820. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 
ORIGIN  AND  CONTENT  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION.^ 

The  purpose  of  this  chapter  is  to  give  an  account  of  the 
origin  and  to  analyze  the  content  of  the  Missouri  constitution 
of  1820.  The  origin  of  the  Missouri  constitution  of  1820  will 
be  considered  by  comparing  its  "Preamble"  and  thirteen  articles 
with  similar  provisions  of  the  then  existing  twenty-three  state 
constitutions  and  the  constitution  of  the  United  States.  The 
special  features  of  the  Missouri  constitution  that  were  excep- 
tional in  character,  will  also  be  set  forth.  The  analysis  of  the 
content  of  the  constitution  will  consist  of  dividing  it  into  its 
logical  parts  in  conformity  with  the  accepted  principles  governing 
the  present  science  of  government.  The  Missouri  constitution 
of  1820  followed  the  normal  type  of  state  constitutions  and  in 
general  conformed  with  the  accepted  scientific  principles  gov- 
erning such  organic  acts.  Few  detailed  provisions  found  their 
way  into  this  constitution.  It  was  a  model  of  conciseness  and 
perspicuity,  dealing  only  in  broad,  general  statements.  It  was 
essentially  a  constitution  framed  by  a  sovereign  convention, 
and  not  a  volume  of  purely  ordinary  legislative  provisions  that 
characterize  so  many  modern  state  instruments.  Owing  to  its 
merits  in  this  respect,  the  Missouri  constitution  of  1820  lends 
itself  to  a  simultaneous  discussion  of  its  origin  and  its  content.^ 

In  tracing  the  origin  of  the  Missouri  constitution  of  1820 
and  in  estimating  the  influence  exerted  on  it  by  other  constitu- 
tions caution  is  required.  This  is  on  account  of  several  things: 
first,  verbatim  copies  in  this  constitution  of  sections  in  other 
constitutions  were  the  exception;  second,  even  when  such  copies 
occur  they  were  sometimes  the  common  property  of  several 
states;   and    third,   most   of   the   sections   in    this   constitution, 


«  For  copy  of  the  constitution  see  Appendix  III. 

•This  chapter  Is  based  on  a  much  more  cietaiU'd  thesis  submitted  l>y  tlie 
author  in  1911  to  the  University  of  Missouri  in  partial  fulllllment  of  tlie  require- 
ments for  the  degree  of  Master  of  Arts.  Tlie  title  of  this  thesis  is:  "The  First 
Constitulion  of  Missouri.  A  sludy  of  its  Origin,  by  Floyd  Calvin  Shucmakcr." 
References  here  to  this  work  will  be  given  to  Shoemaker. 

(212) 


Origin  and  Content  of  the  Constitution.  213 

although  similar  to  sections  in  other  constitutions,  were  rarely 
confined  to  any  one  state  but  appeared  here  and  there  throughout 
the  Union  and  were  frequently  found  in  a  majority  of  state  con- 
stitutions. Because  of  this  it  is  extremely  hazardous  to  say 
unqualifiedly  that  this  or  that  state  constitution  was  the  source 
of  a  certain  provision  in  the  Missouri  constitution. 

The  Missouri  constitution  of  1820,  excluding  the  schedule, 
naturally  divides  itself  into  three  parts:  a  preamble;  a  defini- 
tion of  boundaries;  and  a  frame  of  government,  its  powers  and 
limitations — the  latter  including  a  bill  of  rights. 

The  preamble  to  the  Missouri  constitution  of  1820  was 
unique.  No  state  constitution  of  that  time  contained  a  pro- 
totype of  it.  In  no  other  preamble  were  found  the  words  "a 
free  and  independent  republic."  The  framing  and  adopting  of 
state  constitutions  by  representatives  of  the  people  in  con- 
vention assembled  was  widespread,  although  the  practice  of 
adoption  or  ratification  by  the  people  was  gaining  ground.  In 
this  respect  Missouri  followed  the  former  rule.  Some  of  the 
preambles  attached  to  the  constitutions  of  other  states  were 
long,  others  short.  Some  followed  the  pattern  of  the  United 
States  constitution,  while  others  gave  thanks  to  God  or  epito- 
mized man's  natural  rights.  The  constitutions  of  Kentucky, 
South  Carolina,  Tennessee,  and  Virginia,  bear  the  closest 
resemblance  to  the   Missouri  constitution  on   this  point.^ 

The  definition  of  the  boundaries  of  Missouri  was  set  forth 
in  article  I,  on  "Boundaries."  This  was  a  verbatim  copy  of 
that  part  of  the  Missouri  Enabling  Act  that  prescribed  what 
the  boundaries  of  Missouri  should  be."^ 

The  frame  of  government,  its  powers  and  limitations,  laid 
down  in  the  Missouri  constitution  of  1820,  was  provided  for  in 
twelve  articles.  These  articles  treated  "Of  The  Distribution 
Of  Powers,"  "Of  The  Legislative  Power,"  "Of  The  Executive 
Power,"  "Of  The  Judicial  Power,"  "Of  Education,"  "Of  In- 
ternal Improvement,"  "Of  Banks,"  "Of  The  MiUtia,"  "Of 
Miscellaneous  Provisions,"  "Of  The  Permanent  Seat  of  Gov- 
ernment," of  the  "Mode  Of  Amending  The  Constitution,"  and 


»  Shoemaker,  pp.  I7f. 
*  Cf.,  supra.  Chapter  II. 


214  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

of  a  "Declaration  of  Rights."  Some  of  these  provisions  were 
not  fundamental  and  did  not  properly  belong  in  a  constitu- 
tion, being  rather  administrative  and  legislative  in  character 
than  organic. 

The  constitution  set  forth  the  general  principle  of  the 
frame  of  government  of  the  new  State  in  Article  II,  on  "Of  The 
Distribution  Of  Powers."  This  principle  was  that  the  powers 
of  government  should  be  divided  into  three  distinct  depart- 
ments. Each  department  was  to  be  confided  to  a  separate 
magistracy.  No  person  charged  with  the  exercise  of  powers 
properly  belonging  to  one  of  these  departments,  was  to  exercise 
any  power  properly  belonging  to  either  of  the  others,  except 
where  expressly  directed  or  permitted  by  the  constitution. 

The  conception  of  a  separation  of  the  powers  of  govern- 
ment into  three  distinct  departments  had  become  so  deeply 
imbedded  in  American  political  ideals  by  1820,  that  it  is  not 
surprising  to  find  it  inserted  in  the  first  constitution  of  Missouri. 
One  authority  has  said,  "the  classification  of  governmental 
powers  into  three  is  as  old  as  Aristotle."  ^  This  classification 
was  given  a  theoretical  expression  by  Montesquieu  and  Black- 
stone  in  the  eighteenth  century.^  Later  it  was  incorporated 
and  concisely  expressed  in  a  majority  of  the  early  state  constitu- 
tions of  the  Revolutionary  Period.  Of  these  instruments  the 
1780  constitution  of  Massachusetts  is  the  classic  example. 
Although  omitted  from  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  this  clas- 
sification received  strength  and  authority  by  becoming  one  of 
the  working  principles  of  the  National  Government  as  set  forth 
in  the  constitution  of  the  United  States. 

The  expression  given  this  concept  in  the  Missouri  cons^^itu- 
tion  of  1820,  resembles  most  the  language  of  the  constitutions 
of  Alabama,  Georgia,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Kentucky,  Louisiana 
and  Mississippi.  Both  the  subject  matter  and  the  form  of  this 
article  resembles  closely  the  corresponding  provision  in  the 
constitutions  of  Kentucky  and   Illinois.' 

•  Foster  on  the  Constitution,  1.  299.  For  full  jic(H)unt  soo  chap.  III.  par.  42-45. 
Also,  Dunnlngs,  "Political  Theories,  Ancierit  and  Mediaeral."  p.  9(>.  Tlio  quota- 
tion Kivcn  above  should  be  somewhat  limited  as  it   is  not  entirely  correct. 

*  Story  on  the  Constitution,  1.  chap.  VII.  pp.  3S8-400.  Dunning,  "Political 
Theories  from  Luther  to  Montesquieu,"  pp.  412ir. 

'  Shoemaker,   pp.   20f. 


Origin  and  Content  of  the  Constitution.  215 

The  legislative  department  took  primacy  over  the  executive 
and  judicial  departments  in  the  Missouri  constitution  of  1820. 
This  primacy  found  expression  by  placing  the  legislative  de- 
partment first  in  order  of  arrangement,  by  devoting  a  larger 
portion  of  the  constitution  to  it  than  to  the  other  two  depart- 
ments, and  by  making  it  more  powerful  than  they.  The  legis- 
lative department  was  not  only  the  strongest  of  the  three  branches 
of  government  both  in  its  residuary  and  expressed  powers  and 
in  its  indefinite  sphere  of  control  over  its  two  "co-ordinates," 
but  it  was  endowed  with  the  more  important  function  of  acting, 
under  certain  limitations,  as  the  legal  organization  of  its  sover- 
eign— the  people  of  Missouri.  Occupying  such  prominence, 
possessed  of  such  power,  and  endowed  with  such  potentialities, 
the  legislative  department  set  forth  in  the  Missouri  constitution 
of  1820  deserves  a  more  extended  treatment  than  either  the 
executive  or  the  judicial  department. 

The  legislative  power  was  vested  in  a  body  called  the 
"General  Assembly."  This  body  was  organized  on  the  bi- 
cameral basis.  It  consisted  of  a  "Senate"  and  a  "House  of 
Representatives."  Perhaps  no  principle  of  our  government 
has  received  more  general  acceptance  in  the  United  States  than 
that  of  a  bicameral  legislature.  It  had  long  been  a  fundamental 
rule  of  political  science  for  the  English  people.  It  was  carried 
over  into  the  colonial  governments  more  or  less  generally,  and, 
with  the  exception  of  Vermont,  Pennsylvania  and  Georgia,  it 
was  incorporated  into  all  the  constitutions  of  the  Revolutionary 
Period.  Like  in  many  other  ways,  the  Articles  of  Confederation 
proved  an  exception  to  this  idea.  It  received  recognition, 
however,  and  became  of  more  binding  force  by  being  plainly 
set  forth  in  the  United  States  constitution.  Pennsylvania  and 
Georgia  soon  adopted  it  and  by  1820  only  one  state,  Vermont, 
still  retained  a  unicameral  legislature.  Having  such  a  strong 
foundation  in  practice  as  well  as  in  theory,  its  expression  in 
section  1,  article  III  of  the  Missouri  constitution  is  easily  ac- 
counted for.^  This  section  in  its  brevity  and  language  recalls 
the  corresponding  section  in  the  United  States  constitution.^ 


»  Story  on  the  Constitution,  Ch.  VIII.  407-422;  Shoemaker,  pp.  22f. 
•  U.  S.  Const.,  I.  1. 


216  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

When  compared  with  the  other  state  constitutions,  those  of 
Alabama,  Connecticut,  Delaware,  Georgia,  Kentucky,  Louisiana, 
Mississippi  and  South  Carolina,  are  substantially  identical  with 
Missouri's  on  this  section.  The  constitutions  of  Illinois,  In- 
diana, Ohio,  Tennessee  and  Maine,  also  bear  a  close  resemblance 
to  it.  The  constitutions  of  Kentucky  and  Delaware  were  prob- 
ably the  most  influential  in  its  framing  both  as  regards  terms 
used  and  general  expression. ^'^ 

The  two  houses  were  organized  upon  the  general  principle 
of  popular  representation,  except  that  each  county  was  to  have 
at  least  one  representative  in  the  lower  chamber.  This  general 
principle  was  that  the  members  of  both  chambers  should  be 
apportioned  according  to  the  number  of  free,  white,  male  in- 
habitants in  the  several  districts  and  counties. ^^  This  principle 
was  applied  to  the  house  of  representatives  by  limiting  the 
maximum  number  of  representatives  to  one  hundred  and  by 
guaranteeing  to  each  county  at  least  one  representative.  The 
general  assembly  was  commanded  to  apportion  the  number  of 
representatives  among  the  several  counties  at  its  first  session 
and  again  in  1822,  1824  and  every  four  years  thereafter  on  the 
basis  of  the  state  census  returns  made  on  those  years.  The 
first  general  assembly  had  forty-three  representatives.  This 
number  was  gradually  increased  as  new  counties  were  formed 
and  as  population  grew.^^  The  principle  of  popular  representa- 
tion was  applied  to  the  senate  with  only  two  limitations  on  the 
power  of  the  general  assembly.  The  number  of  senators  was 
not  to  be  less  than  fourteen  nor  more  than  thirty-three.  Further 
when  the  general  assembly  divided  the  state  into  senatorial 
districts,  no  county  was  to  be  divided,  and  no  county  in  one 
district  was  to  be  separated  from  another  county  in  that  distrxt 
by  a  county  lying  in  a  different  district. ^^  The  general  assembly 
was  not  restricted  to  districting  the  State  for  senators  on  certain 
years  as  in  the  case  of  representatives.     It  appears  that  the 


^0  Shoemaker,  pp.  22f. 
»'  Mo.  Const.,  III.  4.  C. 
«« Ibid. 
"•Mo.   Const.,  III.   0. 


Origin  and  Content  of  the  Constitution.  217 

schemes  of  apportionment  for  both  houses  were  copied  from 
the  Kentucky  Constitution.^"* 

The  tenure  of  members  of  the  general  assembly  was  elective. ^^ 
This  was  the  universal  rule  in  all  the  states  for  members  of 
both  houses. ^^  The  electors  at  all  elections,  as  set  forth  in  the 
Missouri  constitution,  were  limited  to  free  white  male  citizens 
of  the  United  States  who  had  attained  the  age  of  twenty-one 
years  and  who  had  resided  in  the  state  one  year  and  in  the  county 
three  months  preceeding  an  election.  Soldiers  and  sailors  in 
the  United  States  army  or  navy  were  disqualified.^^  These 
qualifications  and  disqualifications  relating  to  electors  were 
copied  verbatim  from  the  Alabama  constitution.^^  After 
January  1,  1822,  all  general  elections  were  to  be  held  biennially 
on  the  first  Monday  in  August  and  the  electors,  in  all  cases 
except  treason,  felony  or  breach  of  the  peace,  were  privileged 
from  arrest  in  attending  the  elections  and  in  going  to  and  re- 
turning from  them.^^  Special  elections  could  be  called  by  writ 
of  the  governor  to  fill  vacancies  in  either  house  of  the  legislature. 

The  term  of  representatives  was  two  years;  and  of  senators, 
four  years. 2°  The  same  term  for  representatives  obtained  in 
only  four  states, — Illinois,  Louisiana,  South  Carolina  and  Ten- 
nessee.^^ Seven  states  provided  a  four  year  term  for  senators, — 
Illinois,  Kentucky,  Louisiana,  New  York,  South  Carolina, 
Virginia,  and  Pennsylvania."  While  the  House  changed  every 
two  years,  the  Senate  was  a  continuous  body.  The  Missouri 
constitution  provided  that  at  the  first  session  of  the  general 
assembly  the  senators  should  be  divided  by  lot  into  two  classes. 
One  class  was  to  serve  two  years,  the  other  four  years,  so  that 


^*  Shoemaker,  pp.  28,  31. 

'*  Mo.  Const.,  III.  2,  5. 

i«  Shoemaker,  p.  24. 

^■' Mo.  Const.,  III.  10. 

^^  Shoemaker,  pp.  35f. 

»«A/o.  Const.,  III.  8,  9;  Shoemaker,  pp.  33f.  These  provisions,  which  were 
really  political  limitations  on  the  power  of  the  general  assembly,  were  taken  from 
the  constitution  of  Illinois. 

*o  Mo.  Const.,  III.  2,  5. 

"  Shoemaker,  pp.  24f.     A  one  year  term  was  the  rule  in  the  other  states. 

*^  Ibid.,  p.  29.  Maryland  provided  for  a  five  year  term;  foiu*  states,  for  a 
three  year  term;  two  states,  for  a  two  year  term;  and  the  remaining  states  for  a 
one  year  term. 


218  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

one  half  of  the  senators  would  be  chosen  every  second  year.-^ 
This  provision  was  probably  taken  from  the  Illinois  constitution.-* 

Compared  with  other  states,  Missouri  prescribed  high 
qualifications  for  her  legislators.  The  members  of  the  House 
had  to  possess  or  comply  with  five  requisites.  First,  they 
must  have  attained  the  age  of  twenty-four  years.  The  consti- 
tutions of  Delaware  and  Kentucky  alone  contained  the  same 
age  qualification,  and  only  one  State  constitution,  that  of  Ohio, 
provided  a  higher  one.^^  Second,  they  must  be  "free  white 
male  citizens  of  the  United  States."  This  qualification  was  set 
forth  expressly  only  in  the  constitution  of  Alabama  and  Louis- 
iana, and  impliedly  in  the  constitution  of  Kentucky.  However, 
the  term  "free  white  male"  was  quite  general  in  practice.^^ 
Third,  they  must  have  resided  in  the  State  two  years  before 
their  election.  This  was  followed  in  only  five  states, — Alabama, 
Kentucky,  Louisiana,  Mississippi  and  South  Carolina."  Fourth, 
they  must  have  resided  in  the  county  which  they  represented 
one  year  before  their  election.  This  county  residence  qualifi- 
cation was  widespread  in  the  southern  states.^^  Fifth,  they 
must  have  paid  a  state  or  county  tax.  This  qualification  was 
followed  in  the  constitutions  of  only  three  states, — Illinois, 
Indiana  and  Ohio.^®  It  seems  that  the  constitutions  of  Kentucky 
and  Illinois  were  the  models  used  for  defining  the  qualifications 
of  representatives. 

The  qualifications  for  senators  were  similar  to  those  for 
representatives.  The  age  and  state  residence  qualifications 
were,  however,  higher  for  the  former.  Senators  were  required 
to  be  at  least  thirty  years  of  age  and  to  have  resided  in  the  state 
at  least  four  years  preceding  their  election.  The  constitutions 
of  Ohio,  South  Carolina,  and  the  United  States,  alone  set  forth 
such  a  high  age  qualification  for  senators,  and  the  state  residence 
qualification  was  this  high  in  only  three  states, — Louisiana,  Mis- 


**  Mo.  Const.,  III.  7. 

"  Shoemaker,  p.  32. 

"Mo.  Const..  III.  3:     Shoemaker,  pp.  25flf. 

'•  Ibid. 

"  Ibid. 

»« Ibid. 

»•  Ibid. 


Origin  and  Content  of  the  Constitution.  219 

sisslppi  and  Pennsylvania.  It  is  probable  that  the  constitutions 
that  exerted  the  most  influence  in  defining  the  qualifications  for 
senators,  were  those  of  Kentucky,  Illinois,  Louisana  and  the 
United  States.^^  Missouri  in  prescribing  qualifications  for  her 
law-makers  followed  those  states  that  had  prescribed  high 
requisites  except  as  regards  the  possession  of  wealth. 

The  disqualifications  that  applied  to  members  of  the  general 
assembly  were  equally  as  numerous  and,  with  one  exception, 
as  advanced  as  were  the  qualifications.  In  general  no  person 
was  eligible  to  either  house  who  held  a  lucrative  ofiice  under  the 
United  States,  the  State,  or  the  county.  Militia  officers,  jus- 
tices of  the  peace,  and  postmasters  were  excepted  from  this 
general  rule.^^  Nearly  all  the  state  constitutions  followed  this 
general  rule.^-  Further,  no  collector  of  public  money,  or  his 
deputy,  was  eligible  to  either  house  or  to  any  office  of  profit  or 
trust,  until  he  had  made  an  accurate  and  honest  settlement  of 
such  money .^^  About  half  of  the  state  constitutions  had  a 
similar  provision. ^^  Priests  and  preachers  were  also  ineligible 
to  seats  in  the  general  assembly  and  to  all  offices  of  profit  under 
the  State,  except  the  office  of  justice  of  the  peace.^^  The  con- 
stitution of  Kentucky  probably  exerted  the  greatest  influence 
in  the  framing  of  this  provision. ^^  The  general  assembly  was 
authorized  to  also  exclude  from  all  public  state  offices  and  from 
the  right  of  suffrage,  all  persons  convicted  of  bribery,  perjury 
or  other  infamous  crime.^^  The  disqualification  on  account  of 
crime  was  taken  from  either  the  Illinois  or  Kentucky  constitu- 


*o  Mo.  Const.,  III.  5;  Shoemaker,  pp.  29f. 

»•  Mo.  Const.,  III.  11. 

"  Shoemaker,  p.  37. 

"  Mo.  Const.,  III.  12. 

"  Shoemaker,  p.  37. 

"  Mo.  Const.,  III.  13. 

'«  Shoemaker,  pp.  38f.  This  disqualification  resting  on  clergymen  was  first 
set  forth  in  the  constitution  of  Virginia  of  1776.  The  author  of  that  document 
was  Thomas  Jefferson.  He  purposely  set  this  limitation  on  the  political  activity 
of  ecclesiastics.  This  was  a  result  partly  of  his  ideas  on  religion  as  gathered 
from  French  philosophy  and  partly  on  account  of  the  peculiar  position  occupied 
by  the  clergy  in  Virginia.  The  disqualification  as  expressed  in  the  Virginia  con- 
stitution excepted  no  oflBce.  This  provision  was  probably  copied  from  the  Vir- 
ginia constitution  by  the  people  of  Kentucky  when  they  framed  their  fundamental 
law  but  they  modified  it  so  as  to  except  the  ofiice  of  justice  of  the  peace.  In  this 
latter  form  Missouri  copied  it. 

"  Mo.  Const.,  III.  14.  15. 


220  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

tion.^**  The  disqualification  for  bribery  approached  nearest  to 
similar  provisions  in  the  constitutions  of  Connecticut  and  Dela- 
ware. Few  if  any  of  the  states  went  as  far  as  did  Missouri  in 
including  so  severe  a  corrupt  practices  act  in  their  constitu- 
tions.^^ Finally  no  member  of  the  general  assembly,  during 
his  term  of  office,  was  qualified  to  be  appointed  to  any  civil 
state  office,  which  had  been  created  or  the  emolument  of  which 
had  been  increased  during  his  term  of  office,  except  to  such 
offices  as  were  elective.'*^  This  disqualification  resting  on  sen- 
ators and  representatives  for  certain  offices  was  rather  wide- 
spread among  the  states.''^ 

The  different  qualifications  and  disqualifications  for  legis- 
lators set  forth  in  the  Missouri  constitution,  reveal  in  a  degree 
the  advanced  character  of  that  organic  law.  The  highest 
requisites  for  eligibility  in  other  states  consistent  with  a  demo- 
cratic government,  were  incorporated,  and  the  strictest  pro- 
visions in  other  constitutions  regarding  ineligibility  were  also 
adopted.  Ability  and  honesty  were  the  qualities  sought  in 
representatives  and  senators. 

The  privileges  of  senators  and  representatives  consisted  of 
immunity  from  arrest,  except  in  cases  of  treason,  felony  or  breach 
of  the  peace,  during  the  session  of  the  general  assembly  and  for 
fifteen  days  before  and  after  each  session.  They  were  further 
exempted  from  questioning  in  any  other  place  for  any  speech 
or  debate  made  in  either  house.''^  The  constitutions  of  a  num- 
ber of  the  states  contained  provisions  similar  to  these.  The 
United  States  constitution  probably  served  as  a  pattern  for  all 
in  this  respect.''^  Closely  associated  with  the  privileges  of  mem- 
bers was  their  compensation.  The  amount  of  compensation  was 
not  determined  by  the  constitution.  It  was  left  under  the  control 
of  the  legislature,  but  no  increase  was  to  take  effect  during  the 
session  such  increase  had  been  made.'**  Many  of  the  states  at 
that  time  followed  the  present  rule  of  limiting  the  salary  of  its 

»•  Shoemaker,  p.  31). 
••  Ibid.,  p.   40. 
«•  Mo.  Const..  III.   10. 
«'  Shoemaker,  p.  41. 
"  i\fo.   Const..   111.  23. 
«•  Shoemaker,  pp.  4(lf. 
"  Mo.  Const.,  III.  24. 


Origin  and  Content  of  the  Constitution.  221 

representatives  and  senators.  Missouri  patterned  her  pro- 
vision on  this  subject  after  the  constitutions  of  Alabama,  Dela- 
ware and  Mississippi.'*^ 

It  was  provided  that  the  salary  of  the  lieutenant  governor, 
or  president  of  the  senate  pro  tempore,  while  presiding  in  the 
senate,  should  be  the  same  as  was  allowed  the  speaker  of  the 
house  of  representatives.'*^  The  amount  of  such  compensation 
was  again  left  under  the  control  of  the  general  assembly.  The 
constitution  of  Kentucky  was  probably  the  pattern  followed 
in  this  respect.'*'^ 

The  regular  sessions  of  the  general  assembly  were  biennial 
on  even  years.  The  first  regular  session  was  to  be  on  the  third 
Monday  of  September,  1820;  the  next  on  the  first  Monday  of 
November,  1821 ;  the  next  on  the  first  Monday  of  November,  1822; 
and  thereafter  once  in  every  two  years  on  the  first  Monday  in 
November.  Power  was,  however,  given  the  legislature  to  ap- 
point a  different  day.  In  all  the  states  but  two,  Illinois  and 
Tennessee,  the  legislatures  met  in  annual  sessions.  Missouri 
followed  these  two  states  in  adopting  biennial  meetings.'*^ 
Called  or  extra  sessions  were  also  provided  for.  On  extra- 
ordinary occasions  the  governor  was  given  power  to  convene 
the  general  assembly  in  session  by  proclamation.  The  pur- 
poses of  the  session  were  to  be  set  forth  in  the  proclamation. 
This  was  part  of  the  legislative  powers  of  the  governor  and  was 
possessed  by  the  chief  executives  in  fourteen  states."*^  Hasty 
adjournment  on  the  part  of  one  house  was  guarded  against  by 
providing  that  neither  house  should,  without  the  consent  of  the 
other,  adjourn  for  more  than  two  days  at  any  one  time,  nor  to 
any  other  place  than  to  that  in  which  the  two  houses  had  been 
sitting.  Over  half  of  the  states  had  similar  provisions  regarding 
adjournment.^^ 

The  purely  internal  organization  of  the  general  assembly 
was  determined  partly  by  the  constitution  and  was  left  partly 


"  Shoemaker,  p.  47. 

"A/o.  Const.,  IV.  18. 

«»  Shoemaker,  p.  75. 

**  Mo.  Const.,  III.  33;  Shoemaker,  p.  56. 

*»  Mo.  Const.,  IV.  7;  Shoemaker,  p.  67. 

*o  Mo.  Const.,  III.  20;  Shoemaker,  p.  45. 


222  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

to  the  two  houses.  Each  house  was  given  the  power  to  judge 
of  the  quaUfications  and  elections  of  its  own  members  and  to 
appoint  its  own  officers,  except  that  the  Heutenant  governor 
by  virtue  of  his  office  was  president  of  the  senate. ^^  The  pre- 
siding officer  of  the  senate  next  in  rank  was  the  president  pro 
tempore,  who  was  elected  by  that  body.  The  presiding  officer 
of  the  house  was  the  speaker,  who  was  also  elected.^-  All  these 
officers,  their  names  and  duties,  are  met  with  in  most  of  the 
state  constitutions  of  that  day.  The  constitution  prescribed 
that  a  majority  of  each  house  should  constitute  a  quorum  to 
do  business,  but  a  smaller  number  might  adjourn  from  day  to 
day  and  might  compel  the  attendance  of  absent  members.^^ 
A  number  of  state  constitutions  laid  down  almost  identical 
rules. ^'^  Each  house  was  given  power  to  determine  the  rules 
of  its  proceedings,  punish  its  members  for  disorderly  behavior, 
and,  with  the  concurrence  of  two- thirds  of  all  the  members 
elected,  expel  a  member;  but  no  member  should  be  expelled  a 
second  time  for  the  same  cause.  Each  house  was  required  to 
publish  a  journal  of  its  proceedings,  except  such  parts  as  might, 
in  their  opinion,  require  secrecy,  and  the  yeas  and  nays  on  any 
question  were  to  be  entered  on  the  journal  at  the  desire  of  any 
two  members.^^  Most  of  these  regulations  were  set  forth  in 
a  majority  of  the  other  state  constitutions,  and  it  is  impossible 
to  determine  which  one  exerted  the  most  influence  in  the  framing 
of  the  Missouri  constitution.^^  The  constitution  further  provided 
that  the  doors  of  each  house,  and  of  committees  of  the  whole, 
should  be  kept  open,  except  in  cases  that  might  require  secrecy. 
This  provision  regarding  publicity  of  the  legislature's  proceed- 
ings was  probably  copied  from  the  Illinois  constitution.''^  Finally, 
each  house  was  given  the  power  to  punish,  by  a  fine  not  exceeding 
three  hundred  dollars  or  by  imprisonment  not  exceeding  forty- 
eight  hours  for  one  offense,  any  person  not  a  member  for  dis- 


•'  Mo.  Const.,  Til.  17;  IV.  15.     This  power  of  the  state  legislatures  over  the 
appointment  of  their  ofllcers  was  in  general  use  over  the  nation, 
"  Mo.   Const.,   IV.   18, 
•«  Mo.  Const.,  III.    17. 
••  Shoemaker,  p.  42. 
"  Mo.   Const.,   III.   18. 
••  Shoemaker,  pp.  42f, 
»' Afo.  Const.,  III.  19;  Shoemaker,  p.  43 


Origin  and  Content  of  the  Constitution.  223 

orderly  or  contemptuous  behavior  in  the  presence  of  and  during 
the  session  of  that  house. ^^  In  this  last  respect  the  Missouri 
constitution  went  further  than  any  other.  No  other  state 
constitution  expressly  granted  to  the  legislature  the  power  to 
"fine"  those,  not  members,  for  contempt  of  authority  of  that 
body. 

The  essential  features  of  legislative  process  were  laid  down 
in  the  constitution.  It  was  provided  that  bills  might  originate 
in  either  house  and  might  be  altered,  amended  or  rejected,  by 
the  other  house.  Every  bill  was  to  be  read  on  three  different 
days  in  each  house  unless  two-thirds  of  the  house  where  the  bill 
was  pending  dispensed  with  this  rule.  Having  passed  both 
houses,  every  bill  was  to  be  signed  by  the  speaker  of  the  house 
of  representatives  and  by  the  president  of  the  senate. ^^  Before 
becoming  a  law,  every  bill  must  be  presented  to  the  governor 
for  his  approbation.  If  he  signed  it,  it  became  a  law.  If  he 
did  not  approve  it,  he  was  to  return  it  together  with  his  ob- 
jections to  the  house  of  its  inception.  This  house  was  to  enter 
his  objections  on  its  journal  and  then  proceed  to  reconsider  the 
bill.  If  on  a  recorded  aye  and  nay  vote,  a  majority  of  the 
members  elected  to  each  house,  voting  separately,  agreed  to 
pass  the  bill  over  the  governor's  veto,  it  was  to  become  a  law. 
Further,  if  the  governor  failed  to  return  a  bill  within  ten  days 
(Sunday  excepted)  after  it  had  been  presented  to  him,  the  bill 
was  to  become  a  law  unless  the  general  assembly  had  adjourned 
in  the  meantime.^*^  Every  joint  resolution  of  the  general  as- 
sembly, except  in  cases  of  adjournment,  was  also  to  be  presented 
to  the  governor,  and  was  subject  to  the  same  regulations  as 
obtained  in  the  case  of  a  bill.^^  Finally  it  was  provided  that 
the  style  of  the  laws  of  the  State  should  be:  *'Be  it  enacted 
by  the  general  assembly  of  the  state  of  Missouri."  ^-  These 
essential  features  of  legislative  process,  many  of  which  obtained 


^1  Mo.  Const.,  III.  19;  Shoemaker,  pp.  43f. 

''^  Mo.  Const.,  III.  21. 

«»  Mo.  Const.,  IV.  10. 

"  Mo.  Const.,  IV.  11;  Shoemaker,  pp.  70f. 

"  Mo.  Const.,  III.  36.  An  identical  provision  was  contained  in  the  consti- 
tutions of  Indiana,  Maryland,  Ohio,  Tennessee,  and  Vermont.  {Shoemaker, 
p.    58.) 


224  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

in  other  states,  were  probably  copied  from  the  constitutions  of 
lUinois  and  Kentucky .^^ 

The  powers  of  the  general  assembly  were  broad.  They 
embraced  general  legislative,  delegated  legislative,  executive 
and  judicial  powers.  The  general  legislative  power  or  general 
law-making  power  was  vested  in  the  general  assembly  by  the 
first  section  of  article  three  of  the  constitution.  This  power 
was  and  still  is  vested  in  the  legislature  in  every  state.  The 
delegated  legislative  powers  of  the  general  assembly  consisted 
in  the  main  of  specific  grants  of  power  to  legislate  over  certain 
subjects.  Some  of  these  grants  were  set  forth  in  the  article 
dealing  with  the  legislature  and  others  in  separate  articles. 

The  general  assembly  was  commanded  to  direct,  by  law, 
in  what  manner,  and  in  what  courts,  suits  could  be  brought 
against  the  State.^^  Only  four  state  constitutions  expressly 
gave  this  power  to  the  legislature.^^  The  general  assembly 
was  commanded  to  pass  laws  to  prevent  free  negroes  and  mu- 
lattoes  from  coming  to  and  settling  in  Missouri;  and  to  oblige 
slave-owners  to  treat  their  slaves  humanely. ^^  Further  re- 
garding slavery,  the  general  assembly  was  given  power  to  pass 
laws  to  prohibit  the  introduction  of  any  slave  who  had  com- 
mitted a  high  crime  in  another  state;  to  prohibit  the  introduction 
of  any  slave  for  the  purpose  of  speculation  or  as  an  article  of 
trade  or  merchandise;  to  prohibit  the  introduction  of  a  slave, 
or  a  slave's  offspring,  that  had  been  illegally  imported  into  the 
United  States;  and  to  permit  slave-owners  to  emancipate  their 
slaves,  saving  the  rights  of  creditors,  provided  the  emancipators 
gave  security  that  the  emancipated  slaves  would  not  become 
public  chargcs.*^^  These  provisions  relating  to  slavery  legisla- 
tion, except  the  free  negro  and  mulatto  clause,  were  probably 
copied  from  the  constitution  of  Alabama.  The  free  negro 
clause  was  unique  among  constitutional  provisions  of  that  day, 


«»  Shoemaker,  pp.  45,  70. 

**  Mo.  Const..  III.  25. 

•»  Shoemaker,  p.  48.  The  four  states  were  Alabama,  Delaware,  Kentucky, 
and  MisslsKippI.  Tennessee  limited  this  ri^ht  of  bringing  suits  against  tlio  state 
to  the  citizens  of  Tennessee. 

••  Mo.  Const.,  111.  20. 

•'  Ibid. 


Origin  and  Content  of  the  Constitution.  225 

it  was  also  remarkable  for  the  great  discord  it  later  caused  in 
Congress  during  the  winter  of  1820-1821.'^^  Power  was  given 
the  general  assembly  to  change  the  tenure  of  the  sheriff  and 
coroner.^^  About  half  the  states  followed  the  elective  tenure 
principle  for  these  local  officers,  and  half  the  appointive  tenure. '° 
The  duties  of  the  attorney  general  were  placed  under  the  regula- 
tion of  the  legislature.  This  was  the  rule  in  a  majority  of  the 
states. '^^ 

The  delegated  legislative  powers  of  the  general  assembly 
over  the  judiciary  of  the  State  were  important.  These  powers 
were  purely  legislative  and  did  not  involve  judicial  powers. 
One  of  the  most  important  of  this  class  of  powers  was  that  of 
regulating,  under  certain  constitutional  restrictions,  the  juris- 
diction of  the  courts.  This  principle  of  judicial  regulation  by 
the  legislature  was  followed  by  a  number  of  the  states.  The 
form  in  which  it  was  incorporated  in  the  Missouri  constitution 
shows  the  influence  of  the  constitutions  of  Alabama,  Delaware 
and  Kentucky. '''2  Another  important  class  of  legislative  powers 
over  the  judiciary  was  that  of  districting  the  State  and  of 
determining  the  place  and  time,  for  sessions  of  the  courts. 
These  last  powers  were  subject  to  few  restrictions.  They  seem 
to  have  been  copied  from  the  constitutions  of  Alabama,  Delaware 
and  Louisiana. '^^  The  general  assembly  was  also  empowered 
to  establish  inferior  courts.  No  restriction  was  placed  on  this 
power.  In  practically  all  the  states  the  legislature  was  ex- 
pressly given  this  power. ^^ 

The  delegated  legislative  powers  of  the  general  assembly 
also  included  important  provisions  relating  to  education,  in- 
ternal improvement,  banks,  the  permanent  seat  of  government, 
and  the  mode  of  amending  the  constitution.  Each  of  these 
commanded  a  separate  article. 

The  general  assembly  was  given  practically  unlimited 
control  over  the  education  of  the  State.     Schools  were  to  be 


6«  Shoemaker,  p.  50. 

«9  Mo.  Const.,  IV.  23. 

'">  Shoemaker,  p.  80. 

"  Mo.  Const.,  V.  18;  Shoemaker,  p.  99. 

'*  Mo.  Const.,  V.  2.  6,  10,  11,  17;  Shoemaker,  pp.  87ff,  91flf,  98f. 

''Mo.  Const.,  Y.  5,  6,  7,  9,  17;  Shoemaker,  pp.  SSff.,  91,  98f. 

'<  Mo.  Const.,  V.  1;  Shoemaker,  p.  86. 

M  S— 15 


226  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

encouraged  and  the  national  public  school  lands  in  each  township 
were  to  be  preserved  for  their  use.  One  public  school  or  more 
was  to  be  established  in  each  township  as  soon  as  practicable, 
where  education  was  to  be  free  to  the  poor.  A  state  university 
was  to  be  established  and  supported  from  the  proceeds  of  a  fund 
derived  principally  from  the  seminary  lands  granted  by  the  United 
States.  The  purpose  of  this  university  was  for  the  promotion 
of  literature,  and  of  the  arts  and  science.  Both  the  lands  and 
the  funds  and  endowments  of  the  university  were  under  the 
control  of  the  general  assembly  and  were  to  be  safeguarded  for 
the  use  and  benefit  of  that  institution.  These  educational 
provisions  were  related  to  those  in  other  constitutions.  A  ma- 
jority of  the  states  had  some  constitutional  provisions  relating 
to  education.  These  provisions  differed  greatly.  The  older 
states  naturally  said  nothing  of  United  States  school  lands  and 
few  said  anything  regarding  a  state  university.  In  many  of 
the  newly  created  states  such  provisions  were  not  placed  in 
the  constitutions  but  in  the  enabling  act  of  Congress  or  in  the 
state's  acceptance  of  same.  The  state  constitutions  that  seem 
to  have  been  the  most  influential  in  the  framing  of  the  Missouri 
educational  provisions,  were  those  of  Alabama  and  Indiana — 
both  being  practically  identical  with  the  Missouri  constitution.^^ 

Internal  improvements  were  to  be  encouraged  by  the  state 
government.  The  power  of  the  general  assembly  in  this  field 
was  practically  unlimited.  One  of  its  duties  was  to  ascertain 
the  most  proper  objects  of  both  road  and  water  improvements. 
The  general  assembly  was  also  directed  to  make  an  economic 
and  systematic  application  of  the  funds  appropriated  for  these 
purposes.  The  constitution  of  Alabama  contained  provisions 
practically  identical  with  these. '^^ 

The  delegated  power  of  the  general  assembly  over  the  es- 
tablishing of  a  state  bank  was  restricted.  A  conservative  state 
banking  policy  was  adopted.  The  constitution  of  only  two 
states,  Alabama  and  Indiana,  had  similar  provisions  on  this 
subject  and  neither  so  safeguarded  the  state's  finances  as  did 


'»  A/o.  Const..  VI.;  Shoemaker,  pp.  I03(r. 
''*  Mo.  Const.,  VII.;  Shoemaker,  p.  100. 


Origin  and  Content  of  the  Constitution.  227 

Missouri. '^^  The  general  assembly  of  Missouri  was  given  power 
to  incorporate  only  one  banking  company  to  be  in  operation 
at  the  same  time.  The  general  assembly  could  establish  not 
exceeding  five  branches  for  this  state  bank  and  only  one  branch 
could  be  established  at  any  one  session  of  the  general  assembly. 
The  capital  stock  of  the  state  bank  was  not  to  exceed  five  mil- 
lions of  dollars,  at  least  one-half  of  which  was  to  be  reserved 
for  the  use  of  the  State. '^^ 

A  certain  amount  of  delegated  legislative  power  relating 
to  the  militia  was  granted  the  general  assembly.  It  was  given 
power  to  change  the  tenure  of  those  officers  of  the  militia,  ex- 
cepting the  officers  of  the  staff,  who  were  not  appointed  by  the 
governor.  The  nearest  approach  to  such  a  provision  was  a 
section  in  the  constitutions  of  Tennessee  and  Indiana. ^^  Most 
of  the  states,  however,  had  similar  provisions  on  this  subject. 

The  authority  of  the  general  assembly  over  the  permanent 
seat  of  government  was  set  forth  in  a  separate  article,  con- 
sisting of  four  sections.  The  general  assembly,  at  its  first  ses- 
sion, was  authorized  to  appoint  five  commissioners,  one  from 
each  extreme  part  of  the  State  and  one  from  the  center,  for  the 
purpose  of  selecting  a  place  for  the  permanent  seat  of  govern- 
ment. The  duty  of  these  commissioners  was  to  select  four 
sections  of  the  land  of  the  United  States  that  had  not  been  ex- 
posed to  public  sale.  If  the  commissioners  decided  that  the 
four  sections  of  United  States  land  so  selected  were  not  suitable, 
they  were  empowered  to  select  such  other  place  as  they  did  re- 
gard would  be  proper,  and  they  were  to  report  on  the  second  loca- 
tion at  the  time  of  their  report  on  the  first.  No  place  was  to  be 
selected,  however,  that  was  not  situated  on  the  Missouri  River 
and  was  not  within  forty  miles  of  the  mouth  of  the  Osage  River. 
The  concurrence  of  at  least  three  of  the  commissioners  was  neces- 
sary for  all  decisions  made  by  them.  To  the  general  assembly 
was  given  the  power  of  making  final  decision.  If  the  latter 
body  accepted  the  first  location  the  commissioners  were  author- 
ized to  lay  out  a  town  thereon  under  the  direction  of  the  general 
assembly;  if  the  general  assembly  accepted  the  second  location, 


"  Shoemaker,  pp.   107flf. 

■1^  Mo.  Const.,  VIII. 

'»  Shoemaker,  p.  llO;  Mo.  Const.  IX. 


228  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

the  general  assembly  was  empowered  to  authorize  the  commis- 
sioners to  purchase  any  quantity  of  land,  not  exceeding  six 
hundred  and  forty  acres,  for  this  purpose.  The  place  selected  was 
to  be  the  permanent  seat  of  government  of  Missouri  from  and 
after  October  1,  1826.  The  constitution  of  no  other  state  con- 
tained similar  provisions  on  this  subject.  The  constitutions  of 
Alabama,  Kentucky  and  Louisiana  did,  however,  expressly 
provide  that  the  seat  of  government  could  be  changed  by  the 
legislature.  The  bitter  fight  in  the  Missouri  convention  over 
this  question  was  probably  the  main  reason  for  these  detailed 
clauses  in  the  constitution.^^ 

The  great  legislative  power  of  proposing  and  adopting 
amendments  to  the  constitution  was  also  expressly  delegated 
to  the  general  assembly.  That  body,  on  a  two-thirds  vote  of 
each  house,  could  propose  amendments  without  restriction. 
Such  proposed  amendments  were  then  to  be  published  three 
different  times  in  Missouri,  at  least  twelve  months  before  the 
next  general  election.  At  the  first  session  of  the  general  as- 
sembly after  such  general  election,  that  body,  on  a  two-thirds 
aye  and  nay  vote  of  each  house,  was  given  power  to  adopt  any 
proposed  amendments  or  to  reject  them.  It  was  provided  that 
both  in  proposing  and  ratifying  amendments  they  should  be 
read  on  three  several  days  in  each  house.  Of  the  twenty-three 
state  constitutions  of  that  day  all  except  five.  New  Jersey, 
New  York,  North  Carolina,  Pennsylvania  and  Virginia,  pro- 
vided some  method  of  amendment.  In  fourteen  of  these  the 
legislature  on  its  own  initiative  proposed  the  question  of  amend- 
ment. The  vote  required  differed  from  a  majority  of  one  house, 
as  in  Connecticut,  to  a  two-thirds  vote  of  both  houses.  No 
general  rule  governed  the  manner  of  ratification.  Four  states, 
Delaware,  Georgia,  Maryland  and  South  Carolina,  confided 
this  power  in  the  legislature  alone  after  an  intervening  election 
had  taken  place;  two,  Alabama  and  Connecticut,  in  that  body 
together  with  a  popular  vote.  The  larger  number,  Illinois 
Indiana,  Kentucky,  Louisiana,  Massachusetts,  Mississippi,  Ohio, 
and  Tennessee,  provided  for  the  people  voting  on  a  convention, 
which  body  had  all  powers  of  amending  and  revising  the  con- 


*"  Mo.  Const.,  XI.;  Shoemaker,  pp.  113ff. 


Origin  and  Content  of  the  Constitution.  229 

stitution.  One  state,  New  Hampshire,  provided  for  a  convention 
and  for  ratification  by  the  people;  another,  Maine,  ratification 
by  a  popular  vote;  and  one,  Vermont,  left  ratification  to  the 
legislature  whose  members  were  to  be  instructed.  Some  states 
provided  so  difficult  a  process  as  to  render  amendment  im- 
probable, and  in  fact  some  state  constitutions  of  that  time  were 
never  altered  but  were  replaced  with  new  ones.  Maryland 
alone  provided  in  her  constitution  an  easier  amendment  clause 
than  Missouri. ^^ 

The  executive  power  of  the  general  assembly  was  broad  if 
interpreted  in  connection  with  its  legislative  powers,  and 
limited  if  considered  strictly  from  the  specific  executive  powers 
granted.  Even  from  the  latter  viewpoint,  however,  these 
powers  were  greater  and  wider  in  scope  than  those  retained 
today  by  the  legislature.  The  constitution  set  forth  the  general 
rules  that  the  appointment  of  all  officers,  not  otherwise  directed 
by  it,  should  be  made  in  such  manner  as  might  be  prescribed 
by  law. ^2  This  by  implication  placed  a  great  general  executive 
power  in  the  hands  of  the  general  assembly  and,  in  a  less  degree, 
the  governor,  that  in  many  states  was  expressly  given  to  the 
governor  alone.  This  general  rule  obtained  in  the  constitu- 
tions of  nine  states,  Kentucky,  Louisiana,  Massachusetts,  New 
Hampshire,  Pennsylvania,  Tennessee,  Indiana,  Mississippi  and 
Ohio.  In  the  other  states  either  such  power  of  appointment 
was  given  to  the  governor  or  no  express  mention  was  made 
regarding  it.^^  The  constitution,  by  way  of  regulation,  pro- 
vided that  when  any  officer  should  have  been  appointed  by  the 
joint  vote  of  both  houses,  or  by  the  separate  vote  of  either  house, 
the  votes  should  be  publicly  given  viva  voce,  and  entered  on  the 
journals;  the  whole  list  of  members  should  be  called;  and  the 
names  of  absentees  should  be  noted  and  published  with  the 
journal.  The  constitutions  of  only  three  states,  Alabama, 
Kentucky  and  Pennsylvania,  contained  provisions  similar  to 
these. ^"*     In   the   general    assembly   was   vested    the   power   of 


»^  Mo.  Const.,  XII.;  Shoemaker,  pp.  117f. 

"Mo.  Const.,  III.  32. 

«'  Shoemaker,  pp.  54f. 

»*  Mo.  Const.,  III.  22;  Shoemaker,  p.  22. 


230  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

appointing,  by  a  joint  vote  of  both  houses,  the  state  treasurer. 
This  was  the  general  rule  in  nearly  all  the  states. ^^  These 
executive  powers  were  vested  jointly  in  the  senate  and  the 
governor.  The  appointment  of  the  state  auditor,  attorney 
general,  and  the  secretary  of  state  was  placed  in  the  hands  of 
the  governor  acting  "by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of 
the  senate."  In  the  three  states  that  provided  for  an  auditor, 
his  tenure  was  under  the  power  of  the  general  assembly ;  in  those 
states  that  provided  for  an  attorney  general,  of  which  Alabama, 
Kentucky  and  Mississippi  were  the  models  for  Missouri,  the 
general  rule  was  the  appointive  tenure;  and  in  the  eighteen 
states  that  provided  for  a  secretary  of  state,  seven — Delaware, 
Illinois,  Kentucky,  Mississippi,  Louisiana,  Pennsylvania  and 
Tennessee — made  his  tenure  appointive  by  the  governor,  and 
the  remaining  states  made  it  appointive  by  the  general  as- 
sembly or  elective  by  the  people. ^^ 

The  judicial  power  of  the  general  assembly  extended  to 
three  subjects — impeachments,  addresses  for  the  removal  of 
certain  officials,  and  two  classes  of  contested  elections.  The 
constitution  provided  that  all  state  officials  and  judges  should 
be  liable  to  impeachment  for  any  misdemeanor  in  office;  but 
that  judgment  in  such  case  should  not  extend  farther  than 
removal  from  office  and  disqualification  to  hold  any  state  office. 
The  party  impeached,  whether  convicted  or  acquitted,  was 
liable  to  be  indicted,  tried  and  punished  according  to  law.  The 
house  of  representatives  was  given  the  sole  power  of  impeach- 
ment. All  impeachments  were  to  be  tried  by  the  senate,  and 
when  sitting  for  that  purpose,  the  senators  were  to  be  on  oath  to 
do  justice  according  to  law  and  evidence.  When  the  gove^-nor 
was  tried,  the  presiding  judge  of  the  supreme  court  was  to  pre- 
side. No  person  was  to  be  convicted  without  the  concurrence 
of  two-thirds  of  all  the  senators  present.  The  majority  of 
state  constitutions  had  similar  provisions  on  this  subject.  The 
constitution  of  the  United  States  or  of  Connecticut  was  probably 
the  pattern  followed  by  Missouri.^^     The  general  assembly  was 

**Mo.  Const.,  III.  31;  Shoemaker,  p.  54. 

**  Mo.  Const.,  IV.  12,  21;  V.  18;  Shoemaker,  pp.  71,  77f,  99. 

"Mo.  Const.,  III.  29,  30;  Shoemaker,  pp.  52f. 


Origin  a?id  Content  of  the  Constitution.  231 

given  power  to  remove  supreme  and  circuit  court  judges  and 
the  chancellor  from  office  on  the  address  of  two-thirds  of  each 
house  to  the  governor  for  that  purpose.  Each  house  was  to 
state  in  its  journal  the  cause  of  the  removal  and  give  notice  of 
same  to  the  accused.  The  judge  or  chancellor  whose  removal 
was  requested  was  given  the  right  to  be  heard  in  his  defense 
according  to  law,  but  no  judicial  officer  was  to  be  removed  in 
this  manner  if  he  might  have  been  impeached.  A  majority  of 
the  states  provided  for  removal  of  judges  in  this  manner.  The 
constitution  of  Illinois  was  the  model  followed  by  Missouri.®^ 
Finally  the  judicial  power  of  the  general  assembly  extended  to 
deciding,  by  a  joint  vote  of  both  houses,  contested  elections  of 
governor  and  lieutenant  governor.  This  principle  was  followed 
by  ten  states,  of  which  Illinois  was  the  model  for  Missouri. ^^ 
The  general  assembly  by  a  joint  vote  of  both  houses,  was  also 
given  power  to  decide  between  those  candidates  for  governor 
that  had  polled  the  highest  votes,  who  should  be  governor  in  case 
two  or  more  persons  had  received  an  equal  number  of  votes 
and  a  higher  number  than  any  other  person. ^^ 

The  limitations  placed  on  the  general  assembly  fall  naturally 
into  two  classes — expressed  and  implied.  The  latter  included 
all  those  grants  of  power  made  to  the  executive  or  judicial 
departments  and  those  powers  and  regulations  that  pertained 
in  a  specific  or  restrictive  sense  to  the  legislative  department. 
Powers  granted  to  the  first  two  departments  were  by  implication 
restrictions  on  the  legislature,  since  by  virtue  of  the  state  legis- 
lature's residuary  powers  such  executive  or  judicial  powers 
would  otherwise  have  been  under  the  control  of  the  legislature- 
Further,  those  powers  of  the  legislature  that  were  granted  in  a 
specific  manner  and  those  regulating  provisions  governing  the 
organization  and  procedure  of  the  legislature,  were  by  implica- 
tion limitations  or  probibitions  on  that  body  from  exercising 
such  powers  or  following  such  provisions  in  different  manner. 
Since  all  these  implied  limitations  on  the  general  assembly 
naturally  make  their  appearance  in  considering  the  three  de- 


»»  Mo.  Const.,  V.  16;  Shoemaker,  pp.  97f. 
»*  Mo.  Const.,  IV.  20;  Shoemaker,  pp.  76f. 
»o  Mo.  Const.,  IV.  3. 


232  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

partments,  they  need  not  be  enumerated  in  a  separate  dis- 
cussion.^^ 

The  expressed  limitations  on  the  general  assembly  included 
a  variety  of  subjects.  Most  of  these  were  set  forth  in  a  separate 
article  called  "Declaration  of  Rights,"  the  majority  of  the 
others  were  placed  in  the  article  on  the  legislative  power.  The 
latter  will  be  considered  first. 

One  of  the  most  important  class  of  limitations  on  the 
general  assembly  related  to  slaves.  Certain  implied,  perhaps 
expressed  limitations  were  set  forth  in  those  slavery  provisions 
that  made  it  commandatory  on  the  legislature  to  pass  certain 
slave  laws.  Since  these  have  been  considered  under  the  legis- 
lative powers  of  the  general  assembly  they  will  not  receive 
double  treatment.  Some  other  slavery  limitations  were,  how- 
ever, set  forth  that  were  without  a  doubt,  expressed  ones. 

The  general  assembly  was  prohibited  from  passing  laws 
for  the  emancipation  of  slaves  without  the  consent  of  their 
owners,  or  without  paying  them,  before  such  emancipation, 
a  full  equivalent  for  such  slaves.  It  was  prohibited  from  pass- 
ing laws  to  prevent  bona  fide  immigrants  to  Missouri,  or  actual 
settlers  therein,  from  bringing  from  any  of  the  states  or  ter- 
ritories, such  persons  as  were  there  deemed  slaves,  so  long  as 
such  persons  were  regarded  slaves  in  this  State.  The  con- 
stitutions of  Alabama,  Kentucky  and  Mississippi  had  similar 
limitations  regarding  slavery  legislation. ^^  Other  slavery  limi- 
tations that  were  binding  on  the  legislature  and  also  on  the  other 
two  departments  of  government  were  these:  in  criminal  prose- 
cutions, slaves  were  guaranteed  trial  by  jury;  in  capital  offenses, 
a  convicted  slave  was  to  suffer  the  same  punishment  as  would 
apply  to  white  persons  under  the  same  circumstances;  counsel 
was  to  be  assigned  for  the  defense  of  slaves  in  the  courts;  any 
person  who  should  maliciously  deprive  of  life  or  dismember  a 
slave,  was  to  suffer  such  punishment  as  would  be  inflicted  for  a 
like  offense  if  committed  on  a  free  white  person.  No  other 
state  constitution  went  so  far  in  protecting  the  rights  of  the 


"It  was  not  thought  necessary  in  a  work  of  this  character  to  consider  those 
implied  limitations  on  the  legislature  that  arise  from  judicial  interpretation. 
"Mo.  Const..  III.  26;  Shoemaker,  pp.  49f. 


Origin  and  Content  of  the  Constitution.  233 

slave  as  this  one.  In  only  three  states,  Alabama,  Kentucky, 
and  Mississippi,  did  the  constitution  expressly  give  protection 
to  a  slave  when  prosecuted  for  crime.  These  three  states  and 
Georgia  also  regarded  high  crimes  against  slaves  in  the  same 
light  as  though  against  free  whites.^^ 

The  general  assembly  was  limited  in  its  power  to  establish 
new  counties.  No  county  then  established  was  to  be  reduced, 
by  the  establishment  of  new  counties,  to  less  than  twenty  miles 
square,  nor  was  any  new  county  to  be  formed  that  contained 
less  than  four  hundred  square  miles.  The  constitution  of  Ohio 
alone  contained  an  identical  provision;  a  similar  provision  was, 
however,  included  in  the  constitutions  of  Alabama,  Indiana, 
Mississippi  and  Tennessee. ^"^ 

A  limitation  was  placed  on  the  general  assembly  under  a 
power  granted  it  regarding  the  revision  of  the  laws.  It  was 
provided  that  a  complete  revision  of  all  the  laws  of  the  state 
was  to  be  made  within  five  years  after  the  adoption  of  the 
constitution  and  subsequent  revisions  at  the  end  of  every  ten 
years.  The  constitution  of  only  one  state,  Alabama,  contained 
a  similar  provision. ^^ 

The  general  assembly  was  prohibited  from  interfering  with 
the  primary  disposal  of  United  States  soil  or  with  any  regulation 
of  Congress  for  securing  the  title  in  such  soil  to  the  bona  fide 
purchasers.  It  was  further  prohibited  from  imposing  a  tax  on 
lands  the  property  of  the  United  States  or  from  placing  a  higher 
tax  on  lands  in  Missouri  owned  by  non-residents  than  on  lands 
owned  by  residents.  And  the  constitution,  accepting  and  com- 
plying with  the  Enabling  Act,  declared  the  State  had  concurrent 
jurisdiction  on  the  Mississippi  River  or  any  other  river  as  far 
as  such  river  or  rivers  formed  part  of  its  boundary  and  pro- 
hibited the  general  assembly  from  levying  any  tax,  duty,  impost 
or  toll,  on  such  stream.s  or  on  other  navigable  streams  tributary 
to  the  Mississippi  River.  No  state  constitution  contained 
provisions  identical  with  these.  The  nearest  approach  was  in 
the  constitution  of  Tennessee.     However,  in  most  of  the  en- 


s'Mo.  Const.,  III.  27,  28;  Shoemaker,  pp.  50f. 
»<  Afo.  Const.,  III.  34;  Shoemaker,  pp.  56f. 
»^  Mo.  Const.,  III.  35;  Shoemaker,  pp.  57f. 


234  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

abling  acts  of  the  western  states,  similar  provisions  were  set 
forth.  Their  incorporation  in  these  acts  probably  accounts 
for  their  omission  in  the  state  constitutions.^^ 

The  limitations  on  the  general  assembly  that  were  included 
in  the  "Declaration  of  Rights"  were  also  limitations  or  implied 
prohibitions  on  the  other  two  departments.  They  were,  how- 
ever, of  special  force  with  reference  to  the  general  assembly 
since  they  dealt  largely  with  subjects  that  were  intended  to  be 
protected  from  legislative  alteration.  The  "Declaration  of 
Rights"  included  those  provisions  that  guarded  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  individuals.  It  dealt  w4th  those  fundamental 
principles  of  individual  liberty  and  political  rights,  many  of 
which  had  their  inception,  or  were  supposed  to  have  had,  in 
the  Magna  Charta.  Originally  purposed  to  guard  the  individual 
against  executive  encroachments,  their  scope  was  broadened 
to  act  as  a  safeguard  against  all  governmental  impositions  and 
especially  against  legislative  action.  Having  a  common  origin 
in  English  history  and  a  similar  development  in  American,  the 
provisions  of  the  various  "Bills  of  Rights,"  "Declaration  of 
Rights"  and  "General  Provisions,"  of  the  different  states, 
presented  in  1820  and  still  present  today  a  remarkable  uni- 
formity of  purpose  and  wording.  All  the  states  in  1820,  except 
New  Jersey  and  New  York,  provided  for  a  bill  of  rights  in  their 
constitutions.  In  nine  states  it  was  called  a  "Declaration  of 
Rights,"  in  two  "Bill  of  Rights,"  in  one  "General  Provisions," 
and  in  the  others  had  no  name  but  was  placed  under  a  separate 
article  in  the  constitution. 

The  Missouri  "Declaration  of  Rights"  consisted  of  a  short 
preamble  and  twenty-two  sections.  Since  these  sections  were 
as  concisely  and  as  clearly  stated  as  possible  in  the  constitution, 
an  exposition  of  all  of  them  is  unnecessary.  The  general  prin- 
ciples enunciated  were  these:  that  all  political  power  was  vested 
in  and  derived  from  the  people;  that  the  power  of  regulating  the 
government  and  of  altering  the  constitution  belonged  to  the 
people;  that  the  people  had  a  right  to  assemble  and  petition  the 
government  for  redress  of  grievances;  that  they  also  had  the 
right  to  bear  arms  in  defense  of  themselves  and  of  their  State ;  that 


**  Mo.  Const.,  X.;  Shoemaker,  pp.  11  if. 


Origin  and  Content  of  the  Constitution.  235 

religious  equality  and  freedom  of  concience  were  not  to  be  dis- 
turbed; no  religious  corporation  was  to  be  established;  that  all 
elections  were  to  be  free  and  equal ;  that  the  courts  should  be  open 
to  all;  that  private  property  ought  not  to  be  taken  for  public  use 
without  just  compensation;  that  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  and 
the  ordinary  process  of  legal  procedure  should  remain  inviolate ; 
that  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  should  not  be 
suspended  except  in  cases  of  rebellion  or  invasion ;  that  excessive 
bail  should  not  be  required,  or  excessive  fines  imposed,  or  cruel 
punishments  inflicted;  that  unreasonable  searches  and  seizures 
of  person  or  property  were  prohibited;  that  no  person  could  be 
attainted  of  treason  or  felony  by  the  general  assembly;  that  no 
conviction  should  work  corruption  of  blood  or  forfeiture  of  estate ; 
that  the  freedom  of  speech  and  the  press  should  not  be  infringed ; 
that  no  ex  post  facto  \2LW  should  be  passed;  that  no  debtor  should 
be  imprisoned  for  his  debts  if  he  had  surrendered  his  property 
according  to  law;  that  no  priest  or  preacher  should  be  forced 
to  bear  arms;  that  all  property  subject  to  taxation  should  be 
taxed  according  to  its  value;  that  no  title  of  nobility  should  be 
granted;  that  emigration   from  the  State  should   not  be  pro- 
hibited; that  the  military  was  subordinate  to  the  civil  power; 
that  no  soldier  should  in  times  of  peace  be  quartered  in  any  house 
without  the  consent  of  the  owner;  and  that  no  appropriation 
for  the  army  should  be  made  for  a  longer  period  than  two  years. 
The  only  provision  of  the  foregoing  that  was  not  included  in 
at  least  half  a  dozen   other   state   constitutions  was   the  one 
relating   to   taxation.     The   constitutions   of   only   three   other 
states,  Alabama,  lUinois  and  Maryland,  had  a  similar  provision." 
The  executive  department,   provided   for  in   the  Missouri 
constitution  of  1820,  was  composed  of  the  governor,  lieutenant- 
governor,    adjutant   general,    auditor,    secretary   of   state,    and 
treasurer.     These   officers   and   all   other    state    officers,    both 
civil    and    military,    were    required,    before    entering    on    their 
duties,  to  take  an  oath  to  support  the  State  and  National  con- 
stitutions and  to  demean  themselves  faithfully  in  office.     The 
constitutions  of  Alabama,  Connecticut,  Illinois,  Maine,  Indiana, 
Mississippi  and  Ohio  contained  similar  provisions.     All  of  these 

«^  Mo.  Const.,  XIII.;  Shoemaker,  pp.  119-132. 


236  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

constitutions  were  of  the  nineteenth  century.  No  constitution 
of  the  eighteenth  century  required  a  state  officer  to  take  an 
oath  to  support  the  United  States  constitution  but  practically 
all  required  an  oath  to  support  the  state  constitution.  Ohio 
was  the  first  state  to  start  this  and  with  the  single  exception  of 
Louisiana,  it  was  followed  by  all  the  other  states  that  framed 
constitutions  between  1802  and  1820.^^ 

The  supreme  executive  power  was  vested  in  a  chief  magis- 
trate styled  "The  Governor  of  the  state  of  Missouri."  In 
providing  for  a  single  head  form  of  a  chief  executive  Missouri 
followed  the  general  rule  that  obtained  among  the  states. ^^ 

The  tenure  of  the  governor  was  elective  by  a  plurality 
vote  of  the  qualified  electors.  The  manner  and  time  of  his 
election  were  the  same  as  obtained  for  representatives.  When 
two  or  more  persons  received  an  equal  number  of  votes,  and  a 
higher  number  than  any  other  person,  the  election  was  to  be 
decided  between  them  by  a  joint  vote  of  both  houses  of  the  gen- 
eral assembly  at  their  next  session.  Eleven  state  constitutions 
contained  similar  provisions.  Five  other  states,  Maine,  Mas- 
sachusetts, New  Hampshire,  Vermont  and  Connecticut,  pro- 
vided for  an  election  by  an  absolute  majority;  while  six  other 
states,  Georgia,  Maryland,  New  Jersey,  North  Carolina,  South 
Carolina  and  Virginia,  still  retained  the  old  method  of  appoint- 
ment by  the  legislature;  and  one,  Louisiana,  combined  the  elec- 
tion method  by  the  people  with  appointment  by  the  legislature.^®*' 

The  term  of  the  governor  was  four  years  and  he  was  in- 
eligible for  the  next  four  years  after  the  end  of  his  term  of 
service.  The  first  state  to  provide  a  similar  term  was  Kentucky, 
which  was  probably  influenced  by  the  United  States  constitu- 
tion. This  was  followed  by  Louisiana,  Illinois  and  Missouri. 
Ten  states  still  held  to  the  early  rule  of  a  one  year  term,  six  to 
a  two  year  term,  and  four  to  a  three  year  term.^^^ 

The  qualifications  of  the  governor  embraced  age,  citizen- 
ship, and  residence  requisites.     He  was  required  to  be  at  least 


*»  Mo.  Const..  III.  32;  Shoemaker,  pp.  54f. 
**  Mo.  Const.,  IV.  1;  Shoemaker,  p.  61. 
»»»A/o.  Const.,  IV.  3;  Shoemaker,  pp.  63f. 
>«'  Mo.   Const.,   IV.  3;  Shoemaker,   pp.  63f. 


Origin  and  Content  of  the  Constitution.  237 

thirty-five  years  of  age.  This  was  a  high  age  quahfication.  At 
that  time  the  constitutions  of  Kentucky,  Louisiana  and  the 
United  States  alone  provided  for  the  same.  A  majority  of  the 
states  placed  the  age  minimum  at  thirty  years;  two  states, 
Maryland  and  Tennessee,  at  twenty-five  years;  and  six  states, 
Massachusetts,  New  Jersey,  New  York,  Rhode  Island,  Virginia 
and  Vermont,  had  no  provision  on  this  point.  It  was  further 
required  that  the  governor  be  a  natural  born  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  or  a  citizen  at  the  adoption  of  the  United  States 
constitution,  or  "an  inhabitant  of  that  part  of  Louisiana  included 
in  the  state  of  Missouri  at  the  time  of  the  session  thereof  from 
France  to  the  United  States."  This  was  also  a  high  qualifi- 
cation. Besides  the  United  States  constitution,  from  which 
this  provision  was  obviously  patterned,  the  constitutions  of 
Alabama,  Illinois  and  Maine  alone  made  natural  or  native 
citizenship  of  the  United  States  a  necessary  requisite.  Only 
seven  other  states,  Delaware,  Georgia,  Indiana,  Kentucky, 
Louisiana,  Mississippi  and  Ohio,  made  any  kind  of  United 
States  citizenship  a  requisite.  Finally  the  governor  must  have 
resided  in  the  State  for  at  least  four  years  next  before  his  election. 
Eighteen  of  the  states  required  a  state  residence  qualification, 
varying  from  ten  years  in  South  Carolina  to  two  years  in  Illinois. 
Four  states,  Alabama,  Ohio,  Tennessee  and  Vermont,  provided 
a  four  year  state  residence. ^^^ 

The  compensation  of  the  governor  w^as  under  the  control 
of  the  general  assembly  with  two  restrictions  on  this  control, 
the  salary  of  the  governor  was  not  to  be  increased  or  diminished 
during  the  governor's  continuance  in  office  and  it  was  not  to 
be  less  than  two  thousand  dollars  a  year.  Eighteen  states 
made  some  mention  in  their  constitutions  of  the  compensation 
of  the  governor.  In  no  state  constitution,  however,  was  a 
minimum  amount  mentioned.  In  fact  one  state,  Tennessee, 
placed  the  maximum  salary  at  only  seven  hundred  and  fifty 
dollars.  In  no  state  was  there  such  a  liberal  provision  in  the 
constitution  relating  to  the  salary  of  the  governor.^'^'^ 


^'^^  Mo.  Const.,  IV.  2;  Shoemaker,  pp.  61ff. 
>»»Afo,  Const.,  IV.  13;  Shoemaker,  pp.  7lf. 


238  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

The  succession  to  the  office  of  governor  was  set  forth  in 
detail.  When  the  office  became  vacant  by  death,  resignation, 
absence  from  the  State,  removal  from  office,  refusal  to  qualify, 
impeachment  or  otherwise,  the  lieutenant  governor,  or,  in  case 
of  like  disability  on  his  part,  the  president  pro  tempore  of  the 
senate,  or,  if  there  was  no  president  pro  tempore  of  the  senate, 
the  speaker  of  the  house  of  representatives,  was  authorized  to 
possess  all  the  powers  and  receive  the  same  compensation  as  the 
governor,  until  such  vacancy  was  filled  by  a  new  or  the  old 
governor.  When  the  office  of  governor  became  permanently 
vacant,  the  person  temporarily  filling  that  office  was  commanded 
to  cause  an  election  to  be  held  to  fill  such  vacancy,  giving  three 
months  notice  thereof.  The  person  elected  was  not  rendered 
ineligible  to  succeed  himself.  If,  however,  the  vacancy  happened 
within  eighteen  months  of  the  end  of  the  term,  no  election  was 
to  be  held.  The  succession  to  the  governorship  was  similarly 
provided  for  in  most  of  the  states.  But  only  two  states,  Alabama 
and  Illinois,  had  provisions  in  their  constitutions  similar  to  the 
foregoing  provision  calling  for  a  separate  election  to  fill  such 
vacancy. ^^^ 

The  powers  and  duties  of  the  governor  fall  naturally  into 
four  classes — executive  and  civil  administrative  functions, 
military,  legislative  and  judicial.  These  powers  and  duties 
were  specifically  set  forth  and  were  not,  as  in  some  of  the  cases 
of  the  general  assembly,  possessed  through  residuary  juris- 
diction. 

The  executive  and  civil  administrative  functions  of  the 
governor  were  few  but  important.  He  was  directed  to  dis- 
tribute the  laws  and  to  see  that  they  were  faithfully  executed. 
He  was  further  empowered  to  be  a  conservator  of  the  peace 
throughout  the  State.  These  general  executive  powers  of  the 
governor  were  granted  him  in  a  majority  of  the  states. ^^^  He 
was  given  power  to  fill  by  appointment  vacancies  in  offices, 
and  persons  so  appointed  were  to  continue  in  office  until  a  suc- 
cessor had  been  duly  appointed,  or  elected,  and  qualified  ac- 
cording to  law.     Most  of  the  states  had  a  similar  provision  in 


•o*  Afo.  Const.,  IV.  10,  17;  Shoemaker,  pp.  74f. 
•o'Afo.  Const.,  IV.  8;  Shoemaker,  p.  68. 


Origin  and  Content  of  the  Constitution.  239 

their  constitutions.^"^  The  governor  was  commanded  to  issue 
writs  of  election  to  fill  vacancies  in  the  general  assembly.  A 
number  of  the  states  placed  this  duty  on  the  governor. ^'^^  The 
governor  was  given  the  power  of  appointing,  by  and  with  the 
advice  and  consent  of  the  senate,  the  auditor,  attorney  general, 
secretary  of  state,  and  all  state  judges.  This  was  a  greater 
power  than  was  possessed  by  the  governor  in  most  of  the  states. ^''^ 

The  military  powers  of  the  governor  made  him  the  com- 
mander in  chief  of  the  militia  and  navy  of  the  state,  except 
when  they  were  called  into  the  service  of  the  United  States. 
He  was  not  required  to  command  in  person  unless  advised  to 
do  so  by  a  resolution  of  the  general  assembly.  He  was  also 
given  power  to  appoint  the  adjutant  general,  and  all  other 
militia  officers,  whose  appointments  were  not  otherwise  pro- 
vided for  in  the  constitution.  Similar  provisions  were  set 
forth  in  the  constitutions  of  practically  all  states. ^"^^ 

The  legislative  functions  of  the  governor  embraced  his 
veto  power  on  both  bills  and  joint  resolutions,  his  power  to 
convene  the  general  assembly  in  special  session,  and  his  power 
to  send  messages  to  that  body.  Only  the  last  power  has  not 
been  considered.  The  constitution  provided  that  from  time 
to  time  the  governor  should  give  to  the  general  assembly  infor- 
mation relative  to  the  state  of  the  government  and  should 
recommend  to  their  consideration  such  measures  as  he  deemed 
necessary  and  expedient.  This  legislative  power  was  possessed 
by  the  chief  executive  in  fifteen  states. ^^° 

The  expressed  judicial  functions  of  the  governor  were 
confined  to  his  power  to  remit  fines  and  forfeitures,  and,  except 
in  cases  of  impeachment,  to  grant  reprieves  and  pardons. 
These  powers  were  possessed  by  the  governor  in  nearly  all  the 
states."^ 

The  lieutenant  governor  was  elected  at  the  same  time,  in 
the  same  manner,  for  the  same  term,  and  was  required  to  pos- 


^'^^  Mo.  Const.,  IV.  9;  Shoemaker,  p.  68. 

»<"  Mo.  Const.,  III.  9;  Shoemaker,  p.  34. 

^o<>  Mo.  Const.,  IV.  12,  V.  18,  IV.  21,  V.  13;  Shoemaker,  pp.  71.  99,  77f.  95f. 

^"^  Mo.  Const..  IV.  5,  IX.  3;  Shoemaker,  pp.  66.  110. 

110  Mo.  Const..  TV.  7:  Shoemaker,  v.  67. 


ii«  Mo.  Const.,  IV.  7;  Shoemaker,  p.  67 
111  Mo.   Const.,  IV.  6;  Shoemaker,  66. 


240  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

sess  the  same  qualifications  as  the  governor.  He  was  president 
of  the  senate  by  virtue  of  his  office.  In  committee  of  the 
whole  senate  he  was  privileged  to  debate  on  all  questions  and 
on  an  equal  division  he  was  given  the  casting  vote,  both  in  the 
senate  and  in  joint  votes  of  both  houses.  The  constitutions 
of  ten  states  provided  for  a  lieutenant  governor:  his  duties  were 
similar  in  all  these.  Illinois  and  Kentucky  were  probably  the 
models  followed  by  Missouri  in  framing  these  provisions. ^^- 

The  adjutant  general  was  appointed  by  the  governor. 
Neither  his  term  nor  his  duties  were  prescribed.  In  practice 
he  was  the  actual  head  of  the  militia  and  his  term  depended 
on  the  good  will  and  the  term  of  the  governor.^^^ 

The  auditor  of  public  accounts  was  appointed  for  four 
years  by  the  governor  and  senate.  His  duties  were  to  be  pre- 
scribed by  law  and  his  office  was  to  be  kept  at  the  seat  of  govern- 
ment. Only  three  states  provided  for  an  "auditor,"  and  in 
each  his  tenure  was  appointive  by  the  legislature.  The  functions 
of  auditor  were,  however,  exercised  by  a  separate  officer  in  many 
of  the  other  states.  His  term  in  these  states  varied  from  one 
to  three  years. ^^^ 

The  attorney  general  was  appointed  for  four  years  by  the 
governor  and  senate.  His  duties  were  to  be  prescribed  by 
law.  The  constitution  patterned  this  provision  after  the  con- 
stitutions of  Alabama,  Kentucky  and  Mississippi.  The  ap- 
pointive tenure  was  the  general  rule  followed  by  most  of  the 
states  that  provided  for  such  an  office.  His  term  was  three 
years  in  some  and  during  good  behavior  in  others."^ 

The  secretary  of  state  was  the  most  important  executive 
officer  after  the  governor.  He  was  appointed  for  four  years 
by  the  governor  and  senate,  and  it  was  expressly  stated  that 
he  was  subject  to  removal  by  impeachment  processes,  rlis 
duties  were  largely  enumerated.  He  was  to  keep  a  register  of 
all  the  official  acts  of  the  governor  and  when  necessary  attest 
them;  he  was  commanded  to  lay  same,  together  with  all  papers 
relative  thereto,  before  either  house  of  the  general  assembly, 


"»Mo.   Const.,  IV.   14.   15;  Shoemaker,  pp.   72f. 
^i»  Mo.  Const.,  IX.  3;  Shoemaker,  p.  110. 
^^*  Mo.  Const.,  IV.  12;  Shoemaker,  pp.  71f. 
*'*  Mo.  Const.,  V.  18;  Shoemaker,  p.  99. 


Origin  and  Content  of  the  Constitution.  241 

whenever  requested;  and  he  was  to  perform  such  other  duties 
as  might  be  enjoined  on  him  by  law.  He  was  further  charged 
with  procuring  a  seal  of  state,  with  such  emblems  as  should  be 
directed  by  law.  This  seal,  called  the  "Great  Seal  of  the  State 
of  Missouri,"  was  under  the  custodianship  of  the  secretary  of 
state.  All  official  acts  of  the  governor,  his  approbation  of  the 
laws  excepted,  were  to  be  thereby  authenticated.  Finally, 
the  returns  of  all  elections  of  governor  and  lieutenant  governor 
were  to  be  made  to  the  secretary  of  state.  Eighteen  states 
made  provision  in  their  constitutions  for  a  secretary  of  state. 
Three  of  these,  Kentucky,  Louisiana  and  Tennessee,  were 
identical  with  the  Missouri  constitution.  Four  other  states, 
Delaware,  Illinois,  Mississippi  and  Pennsylvania,  made  his 
tenure  appointive  by  the  governor.  The  remaining  states  either 
made  his  tenure  appointive  by  the  legislature  or  elective  by  the 
people,  which  latter  obtained  in  Connecticut  and  Maine.  Be- 
sides the  first  three  states,  only  two  others  made  his  term  four 
years,  Indiana  and  South  Carolina.  With  the  exception  of 
Virginia,  which  made  his  term  during  good  behavior,  the  re- 
maining states  were  equally  divided  in  providing  a  term  of 
one,  two,  or  three  years.  His  duties  were  similar  in  most  of 
the  states.  All  the  states  made  some  provision  in  their  con- 
stitutions for  a  seal  of  state.  It  went  by  difTerent  names.  In 
the  majority  of  the  states  the  custodian  was  the  governor;  in 
Georgia  and  Connecticut  it  was  the  secretary  of  state. ^^^ 

The  state  treasurer  was  appointed  biennially  by  joint  vote 
of  the  two  houses  of  the  general  assembly.  His  office  was  at 
the  seat  of  government.  No  money  was  to  be  drawn  from  the 
treasury  but  in  consequence  of  lawful  appropriations.  He  was 
required  to  keep  an  accurate  account  of  the  receipts  and  ex- 
penditures of  the  public  money,  which  account  was  to  be  pub- 
lished annually.  The  constitutions  of  only  Georgia,  Illinois 
and  Tennessee  provided  a  two  year  term  for  the  treasurer. 
The  appointive  tenure  by  the  legislature  was  the  general  rule 
in  nearly  all  the  states.  The  financial  duties  and  regulations 
prescribed  were  also  the  same  in  most  of  the  states. ^^*^ 


>"A/o.  Const.,  IV.  19,  21,  22;  Shoemaker,  pp.  77ff. 
11' Mo.  Const.,  III.  31;  Shoemaker,  pp.  53f. 
M  S— 16 


242  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

The  judicial  powers  were  vested  in  a  supreme  court,  in  a 
chancellor  or  a  court  of  chancery,  in  circuit  courts,  in  such 
inferior  tribunals  as  the  general  assembly  might  establish,  and 
in  local  justices  of  the  peace. "^  The  system  of  organization 
was  hierarchical  both  in  form  and  in  character  of  jurisdiction. 
Only  the  first  three  bodies,  which  were  essentially  state  courts, 
received  any  considerable  attention  in  the  constitution,  the 
others,  which  were  local  courts,  being  subject  to  the  control  of 
the  general  assembly.  Not  one,  however,  was  free  from  a  con- 
siderable degree  of  control  on  the  part  of  the  legislature.  The 
only  constitutional  provisions  that  seemingly  applied  to  all 
five  courts  related  to  clerks  and  writs.  The  courts  were  em- 
powered to  appoint  their  clerks,  who  were  to  hold  ofhce  during 
good  behavior.  For  any  misdemeanor  in  ofifice  they  were  liable 
to  be  tried  and  removed  by  the  supreme  court  as  should  be 
directed  by  law.  Nearly  half  of  the  state  constitutions  had 
similar  provisions. ^^^  The  Missouri  constitution  provided  that 
all  writs  and  processes  should  run,  and  all  prosecutions  should 
be  conducted,  in  the  name  of  the  ''State  of  Missouri;"  and  that 
all  writs  should  be  tested  by  the  clerk  of  the  court  from  which 
they  should  issue,  and  all  indictments  should  conclude,  "against 
the  peace  and  dignity  of  the  state."  A  majority  of  the  state 
constitutions  set  forth  similar  rules.  Some  used  the  word, 
"People,"  some  "Commonwealth,"  but  most  used   "State."  ^^^ 

The  judges  of  the  supreme  court  and  the  circuit  courts, 
and  the  chancellor,  were  all  subject  to  the  same  constitutional 
provisions  regarding  their  tenure,  term,  compensation,  qualifi- 
cation and  removal.  Their  tenure  was  appointive  by  the 
governor  and  the  senate.  All  the  states  except  Georgia,  and 
in  part  Indiana,  provided  for  an  appointive  tenure  for  the 
judges:  about  half  confided  this  power  in  the  legislature  and 
half  in  the  governor  and  senate  or  council. ^-^  The  tenure  was 
during  good  behavior.  All  of  the  states  except  Georgia,  In- 
diana, Ohio  and  Connecticut,  made  the  same  provision. ^-^     The 


»>«  Mo.  Const.,  v.  1,  12,  17. 
^i»  Mo.  Const.,  V.  15;  Shoemaker,  p.  97. 
""Mo.  Const.,  V,  19;  Shoemaker,  pp.  99f. 
"*  Mo.  Const.,  V.  13;  Shoemaker,  pp.  94f. 
">  Ibid. 


Origin  and  Content  of  the  Constitution.  243 

salary  was  not  to  be  lower  than  two  thousand  dollars  a  year 
and  was  not  to  be  diminished  during  the  holding  of  office. 
Practically  all  the  states  provided  that  either  the  salary  was 
to  be  adequate  or  was  not  to  be  diminished  during  office.  Mis- 
souri followed  the  general  rule  that  obtained  in  all  of  these 
cases  except  that  she  stated  definitely  what  the  minimum  salary 
was.  Illinois  was  the  only  other  state  that  did  this,  and  Louis- 
iana was  the  only  state  that  placed  the  salary  at  a  definite 
figure. ^2^  The  only  qualification  that  applied  to  these  judges 
related  to  age.  The  minimum  age  qualification  was  thirty 
years;  the  maximum  was  sixty-five  years,  over  which  no  judge 
was  to  exercise  the  duties  of  his  office.  No  other  state  consti- 
tution contained  a  minimum  age  qualification  for  judges  and 
only  five,  Alabama,  Connecticut,  Maine,  Mississippi  and  New 
Hampshire,  provided  for  a  maximum  one.  The  actual  qualifi- 
cations of  the  judges  during  the  early  state  period  were  uniformly 
high  but  this  was  due  either  to  statutory  provisions  or  to  cus- 
tom.^^"^  The  removal  of  the  judges  was  provided  for  either  by 
impeachment  proceedings  by  the  house  of  representatives  and 
by  the  senate,  or  by  address  of  the  general  assembly  to  the 
governor.  Both  of  these  functions  have  been  considered  under 
the  judicial  powers  of  the  legislature. ^^^ 

Besides  these  general  rules  applying  to  the  organization 
of  the  three  higher  courts,  the  constitution  also  set  forth  specific 
provisions  regarding  both  the  organization  and  the  jurisdiction 
of  each  court. 

The  supreme  court  was  composed  of  three  judges,  any  two 
of  whom  constituted  a  quorum.  These  judges  were  to  be  con- 
servators of  the  peace  throughout  the  State.  A  majority  of 
the  states  provided  for  a  supreme  court  of  some  kind  although 
under  various  names.  No  rules  obtained  in  the  states  regarding 
the  composition  of  this  court.  The  number  of  judges  varied 
from  three  to  eight.  In  all  cases  either  two  or  a  majority  of 
the  judges  constituted  a  quorum,  and  in  many  states  they  were 


1"  Ibid. 

^^*  Mo.  Const.,  V.  14;  Shoemaker,  p.  96. 

"» See  supra. 


244  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

expressly   made  conservators  of   the   peace.     The   constitution 
of  Indiana  was  probably  the  model  followed  by  Missouri.^^^ 

The  general  jurisdiction  of  the  supreme  court,  except  in  cases 
otherwise  directed  by  the  constitution,  was  appellate  and  was 
co-extensive  with  the  State.  The  constitution  gave  the  court 
general  superintending  control  over  all  inferior  courts.  It 
was  also  given  the  power  to  issue  writs  of  habeas"  corpus,  man- 
damus, quo  warranto,  certiorari  and  other  remedial  writs,  and 
to  hear  and  determine  the  same.  The  constitutions  of  Alabama, 
Georgia  and  Tennessee  gave  the  same  jurisdiction  to  their 
supreme  courts.  The  Indiana  constitution  contained  a  similar 
provision  but  did  not  expressly  give  the  supreme  court  power 
to  issue  remedial  writs. ^^^  The  place  and  time  of  sessions  were 
largely  under  the  control  of  the  general  assembly.  It  was 
provided  that  the  state  should  be  divided  into  convenient 
districts,  not  to  exceed  four,  in  each  of  which  the  supreme  court 
was  to  hold  two  sessions  annually,  at  such  place  as  the  general 
assembly  should  appoint;  and  when  sitting  in  either  district, 
that  court  should  exercise  jurisdiction  over  causes  originating 
in  that  district  only.  It  was  further  provided,  however,  that 
the  general  assembly  might,  at  any  time,  direct  by  law  that 
the  supreme  court  hold  its  sessions  at  one  place  only.  Few 
state  constitutions  made  mention  of  these  subjects.  The 
constitution  of  Louisiana  bore  the  nearest  resemblance  to  Mis- 
souri's in  this  respect. ^^^ 

The  composition  of  the  court  of  chancery  was  a  chancellor. 
The  jurisdiction  of  this  court  was  co-extensive  with  the  State. 
The  times  and  places  of  holding  its  sessions  were  to  be  regulated 
in  the  same  manner  as  those  of  the  supreme  court.  It  was  to 
have  possessed  original  and  appellate  jurisdiction  in  all  matters 
of  equity,  and  a  general  control  over  executors,  administrators, 
guardians  and  minors,  subject  to  appeal,  in  all  cases,  to  the 
supreme  court,  as  should  be  provided  by  law.  Only  seven 
states,  Alabama,  Delaware,  New  Jersey,  Vermont,  Maryland, 
Pennsylvania  and   Mississippi,  made  any  express  provision  in 


^^'^  Mo.  Const.,  V.  4;  Shoemaker,  p.  88. 
i^-i  Mo.  Const.,  v.  3;  Shoemaker,  p.  87. 
^**  Mo.  Const.,  V.  5;  Shoemaker,  pp.  88f. 


Origin  and  Content  of  the  Constitution.  245 

their  constitutions  for  a  chancellor  or  a  court  of  chancery. 
Regarding  both  the  extent  and  kind  of  jurisdiction  of  this  court, 
Missouri  followed  the  Delaware  constitution. ^^o 

The  circuit  courts  were  modeled  on  those  of  the  territorial 
period.  Each  was  composed  of  one  circuit  judge.  The  State 
was  to  be  divided  into  convenient  circuits,  for  each  of  which  a 
judge  was  to  be  appointed.  Each  circuit  judge  was  required 
to  reside  in  his  circuit  and  was  to  be  a  conservator  of  the  peace 
in  that  circuit.  The  name  "circuit  court"  appeared  only  in  the 
constitutions  of  Illinois,  Indiana  and  Alabama.  The  functions 
of  this  court  were,  however,  exercised  in  other  states  by  like 
courts  that  differed  in  name  only.^^*^  The  reason  the  number 
of  circuits  were  not  fixed  in  the  constitution  was  probably  due 
to  the  obvious  necessity  that  would  arise  of  making  changes. 
The  jurisdiction  of  this  court  extended  to  both  criminal  and 
civil  cases.  It  was  given  jurisdiction  over  all  criminal  cases 
that  should  not  be  otherwise  provided  for  by  law,  and  exclusive 
original  jurisdiction  in  all  civil  cases  not  cognizable  before 
justices  of  the  peace,  until  otherwise  directed  by  the  general 
assembly.  The  circuit  court  was  further  authorized  to  exercise 
a  superintending  control  over  all  inferior  tribunals  that  might 
be  established  and  over  justice  of  the  peace  in  each  county  in 
its  respective  circuit.  The  time  of  sessions  was  impliedly  left 
to  the  regulation  of  the  general  assembly.  The  place  of  session 
was  expressly  under  the  selection  of  that  body  with  the  limitation 
that  one  place  was  to  be  selected  in  each  county.  The  pro- 
visions regarding  the  jurisdiction  of  the  circuit  court  were  prob- 
ably copied  from  the  constitution  of  Alabama;  those  regarding 
the  control  of  this  court  over  inferior  tribunals  were  patterned 
after  the  Ohio  and  Pennsylvania  courts. ^^^  The  circuit  court 
was  also  given  jurisdiction  in  matters  of  equity.  Its  decision 
in  such  matters  was  not  final,  being  subject  to  appeal  to  the 
court  of  chancery.  This  equity  jurisdiction  was,  further,  not 
vested  permanently  in  the  circuit  court,  but  only  until  the 
general  assembly  should  establish  inferior  courts  of  chancery. 


i^>  Mo.  Const.,  V.  9,  10;  Shoemaker,  pp.  86,  90f, 

^i"  Mo.  Const.,  V.  7;  Shoemaker,  pp.  86,  90. 

I'l  Mo.  Const.,  V.  6,  8;  Shoemaker,  pp.  89f.,  90f. 


246  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

In  giving  the  circuit  court  this  kind  of  jurisdiction  the  Missouri 
constitution  followed  the  constitutions  of  Alabama  and  Dela- 
ware. ^^^ 

The  local  courts  embraced  * 'inferior  tribunals"  and  courts 
of  justices  of  the  peace.  These  two  courts  were  subject  in  every 
express  way  to  the  control  of  the  legislature.  The  constitution 
provided  that  inferior  tribunals  should  be  established  in  each 
county.  These  courts  combined  the  powers  of  county  courts 
and  probate  courts.  They  were  to  transact  all  county  business, 
appoint  guardians,  grant  letters  testamentary  and  of  adminis- 
tration, and  settle  the  accounts  of  executors,  administrators 
and  guardians.  The  constitution  further  provided  that  in 
each  county  there  were  to  be  appointed  as  many  justices  of 
the  peace  as  the  public  good  required.  Their  power  and  duties, 
and  term  were  to  be  regulated  by  law.  A  number  of  state 
constitutions  provided  for  the  establishing  of  inferior  tribunals. 
Of  these,  the  constitutions  of  Kentucky  and  Mississippi  were 
the  models  for  Missouri. ^^^  A  majority  of  the  states  that 
provided  in  their  constitution  for  justices  of  the  peace,  made 
the  tenure  appointive  and  the  term  from  three  to  nine  years. 
Their  number  and  duties  were  open  to  statutory  regulation. 
The  constitutions  of  Illinois  and  Kentucky  were  the  models 
for  Missouri  on  this  subject. ^^^ 

The  constitution  while  enlarging  on  the  frame  of  state 
government,  its  organization,  powers,  duties  and  limitations, 
paid  little  attention  to  the  frame  of  local  government.  The 
form  and  character  of  the  latter  was  in  general  to  be  determined 
by  the  general  assembly.  There  were,  however,  four  limitations 
on  this  power,  the  first  three  of  which  have  been  considered. 
Inferior  tribunals  were  to  be  established  in  each  county  for 
transacting  county  business,  justices  of  the  peace  were  to  be 
appointed  in  each  county,  no  county  was  to  be  established 
with  less  than  four  hundred  square  miles  area  and  no  county 
reduced  to  less  than  that  size,  and  a  sheriff  and  a  coroner  were 
to  be  provided  for  in  each  county. 


i"  Mo.  Const.,  V.  11;  Shoemaker,  p.  92. 
^'*  Mo.   Const.,  v.    12;  Shoemaker,   p.   93. 
^**  Mo.  Const.,  V.  17;  Shoemaker,  pp.  98f. 


Origin  and  Content  of  the  Constitution.  247 

There  were  to  be  appointed  in  each  county  a  sheriff  and 
a  coroner,  who,  until  the  general  assembly  should  otherwise 
provide,  should  be  elected  by  the  qualified  voters  at  the  time 
and  place  of  electing  representatives.  Their  term  was  two 
years,  and  they  were  to  hold  office  until  a  successor  had  been 
duly  appointed  and  qualified.  They  were  subject  to  removal 
for  misdemeanor  in  office  and  were  ineligible  four  years  in  any 
period  of  eight  years.  They  were  required  to  give  security  for 
the  faithful  discharge  of  the  duties  of  their  ofifice,  as  prescribed 
by  law.  Whenever  a  new  county  was  established,  the  governor 
was  to  appoint  for  it  a  sheriff  and  a  coroner,  who  were  to  con- 
tinue in  ofifice  until  the  next  election  and  a  successor  had  been 
duly  qualified.  When  vacancies  happened  in  the  office  of  either, 
they  w^ere  to  be  filled  by  appointment  of  the  governor  and  those 
so  appointed  were  to  hold  ofifice  until  successors  had  been  duly 
qualified.  Such  appointees  were  not,  however,  rendered  in- 
eligible for  the  next  succeeding  term.  In  tie  and  contested 
elections  of  either  office  the  circuit  court  was  given  the  power 
of  deciding  who  should  hold  the  ofifice. ^^^ 

All  the  states  made  some  provision  for  a  sheriff  in  their  con- 
stitutions and  a  number  for  a  coroner.  Thirteen  states  pro- 
vided for  both  officers  in  each  county;  the  remaining  states 
either  provided  for  a  sheriff  or  sheriffs  alone,  or  for  two  sheriffs 
and  two  coroners.  About  half  the  states  had  the  elective 
tenure  as  applied  here  and  the  remainder  the  appointive.  Seven 
states  allowed  a  two  year  term;  six,  a  one  year  term;  five,  a  three 
year  term;  one,  a  four  year  term;  and  the  remainder  left  this 
point  open.  A  number  of  constitutions  made  these  officers 
ineligible  for  certain  lengths  of  time.  Only  two  state  con- 
stitutions, Connecticut  and  Vermont,  required  these  offices  to 
give  security,  however  in  Maryland  the  qualifications  for  sheriff 
were  high.  The  governor's  power  of  appointment  in  certain 
contingencies  was  one  exercised  in  actual  practice  in  a  number 
of  states  although  not  provided  for  by  constitutional  provisions. 
In  the  case  of  tie  and  contested  elections  the  local  courts  were 
not  given  powers  of  decision  in  any  other  state  constitution. 
However,  in  Kentucky,  Tennessee  and  Virginia,   these  courts 


^»  Mo.  Const.,  IV.  23.  24,  25. 


248  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

were  the  determining  factors  in  the  appointment  of  the  sheriff 
and  coroner,  and  in  Tennessee  they  were  the  sole  appointers. 
It  was  natural  that  when  Missouri  adopted  the  elective  tenure 
for  these  offices,  contested  elections  and  ties  were  left  to  be  de- 
termined by  the  old  judicial  bodies  having  such  full  power  in 
these  three  kindred  states.  The  local  government  provisions 
in  the  Missouri  constitution  seem  to  have  been  influenced  by 
the  constitutions  of  Alabama,  Connecticut,  Delaware,  Georgia, 
Illinois,  Kentucky,  Tennessee  and  Virginia. 

This  concludes  the  study  of  the  origin  and  the  analysis  of 
the  content  of  the  Missouri  constitution.  A  "Schedule"  ap- 
pended to  that  document  contained  provisions  and  arrange- 
ments for  the  transition  from  the  territorial  government  to  a 
state  regime.  Being  of  a  temporary  nature,  this  schedule  is 
not  strictly  a  part  of  the  constitution.  In  general  this  schedule 
did  not  differ  from  those  in  other  state  instruments.  It  treated 
of  five  main  subjects:  the  territorial  governmental  processes 
and  officers  that  were  to  hold  over  up  to  or  after  the  inauguration 
of  the  state  government;  the  temporary  seat  of  government  of 
the  State;  the  apportionment  of  members  for  the  first  state 
general  assembly;  the  first  state  election;  and  the  governor's 
seal.  It  provided  that  legal  instruments  and  actions  at  law 
then  in  force  were  to  continue  effective;  that  all  territorial  laws 
not  repugnant  to  the  constitution  were  to  operate  until  they 
expired  by  their  own  limitations,  or  were  altered  or  repealed 
by  the  general  assembly;  and  that  all  territorial  officers  were 
to  hold  office  and  receive  compensation  until  superseded  by 
state  officials. 

It  provided  that  the  first  meeting  of  the  general  assembly 
was  to  be  at  St.  Louis,  with  power  to  adjourn  to  any  other 
place;  that  that  body  at  its  first  session  was  to  fix  the  temporary 
seat  of  government  until  October  1,  1826;  and  that  it  had  power 
to  hx  the  compensation  of  its  members. 

The  following  apportionment  was  made  for  the  forty-three 
representatives  to  the  first  general  assembly:  Howard,  eight; 
Cooper,  four;  Montgomery,  two;  Lincoln,  one;  Pike,  two;  St. 
Charles,  three;  St.  Louis,  six;  Franklin,  two;  Jefferson,  one; 
Washington,  two;  Ste.  Genevieve,  four;  Cape  Girardeau,  four; 


Origin  and  Content  of  the  Constitution.  249 

New  Madrid,  two;  Madison,  one;  and  Wayne,  one.  Persons 
who  had  resided  in  the  state  five  months  previous  to  the  adop- 
tion of  the  constitution  and  who  were  otherwise  quaHfied  ac- 
cording to  the  provisions  of  the  constitution  were  ehgible  to 
the  house  of  representatives  and  to  the  senate.  For  the  first 
election  of  senators,  the  State  was  divided  into  nine  districts 
and  the  fourteen  senators  were  apportioned  as  follows :  Howard 
and  Cooper,  four  senators;  Montgomery  and  Franklin,  one; 
St.  Charles,  one;  Lincoln  and  Pike,  one;  St.  Louis,  two;  Wash- 
ington and  Jefferson,  one;  Ste.  Genevieve,  one;  Madison  and 
Wayne,  one;  Cape  Girardeau  and  New  Madrid,  two. 

David  Barton,  president  of  the  convention,  was  directed 
to  issue  writs  of  election  to  the  sheriffs  of  the  several  counties, 
requiring  them  to  cause  an  election  to  be  held  on  the  fourth 
Monday  in  August,  1820,  for  a  governor,  a  lieutenant  governor, 
a  representative  in  Congress,  for  the  residue  of  the  Sixteenth 
Congress,  a  representative  for  the  Seventeenth  Congress, 
senators  and  representatives  for  the  general  assembly,  sheriffs 
and  coroners.  Any  person  who  had  resided  in  the  State  at  the 
adoption  of  the  constitution  and  who  was  otherwise  qualified, 
was  deemed  a  qualified  elector.  The  elections  were  to  be  con- 
ducted according  to  the  existing  laws  of  the  Territory. 

Finally,  the  schedule  provided  that  the  governor  might 
use  his  private  seal  until  a  State  seal  was  provided. 

In  a  study  of  the  origin  and  in  an  analysis  of  the  content 
of  the  Missouri  constitution  of  1820  two  points  stand  out 
clearly:  first,  this  constitution  was  fundamental  as  compared 
with  the  majority  of  later  state  instruments  in  setting  forth 
in  brief  terms  the  organization  and  functions  of  the  State 
government;  second,  its  general  provisions  differed  in  relatively 
few  respects  from  those  to  be  found  in  some  of  the  then  existing 
state  constitutions. 

In  the  framing  of  some  parts  it  is  apparent  that  one  or 
two  state  constitutions  were  largely  the  patterns  followed;  as 
regards  other  parts  it  appears  that  they  were  selected  from  first 
one  and  then  another  state's  organic  law.  Naturally  the  very 
character  of  the  inhabitants  of  Missouri  predisposed  them  to 
follow  the  southern  type  of  constitutions,   especially  those  of 


250  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

Kentucky  and  Alabama  in  preference  to  those  of  the  north, 
but  this  did  not  seemingly  in  the  least  hinder  the  convention 
from  favoring  and  choosing  a  section  from  the  constitutions  of 
Maine,  Delaware,  Connecticut  or  Pennsylvania,  or  from  Ohio 
and  Indiana,  and  throughout  the  entire  document  is  seen  the 
great  influence  exerted  by  the  constitution  of  Illinois.  In  fact 
it  appears  that  with  the  exception  of  Kentucky,  the  latest 
framed  state  constitutions,  e.  g.,  Alabama,  Illinois,  Maine,  etc., 
were  more  influential  than  the  others.  Further  it  appears  that 
the  framers  of  this  constitution  strove  conscientiously  to  adopt 
those  provisions,  from  whatever  source  they  came,  that  in  their 
view  were  the  best  fitted  for  guiding  Missouri  in  her  future 
development.  Two  compromises  on  important  subjects  were 
included  in  this  document  and  each  was  made  in  a  similar 
manner.  The  selection  of  a  permanent  seat  of  government  was 
shifted  to  the  general  assembly  and  the  choosing  of  either  the 
viva  voce  or  the  ballot  system  of  voting  was  also  shifted  to  the 
shoulders  of  that  body.  On  the  whole,  it  speaks  well  for  the 
convention  that  its  work  stood  the  test  of  nearly  half  a  century 
and  then  was  displaced  by  an  instrument  whose  adoption  was 
based  on  reasons  other  than  merit,  however  great  the  latter 
was  in  itself. 

The  specific  provisions  of  the  Missouri  constitution  of  1820 
differed  in  some  respects  from  those  in  other  constitutions. 
These  differences,  or  departures  from  established  rules,  were 
on  the  whole  distinct  advances.  Some  were  merely  novelties, 
but  most  were  important  and  in  practice  worked  w^ell.  The 
latter  is  proved  by  the  incorporation  of  a  majority  of  these 
specific  provisions  in  the  present  constitution  of  Missouri. 

The  preamble  of  the  1820  constitution  contained  a  phrase 
that  appeared  in  no  other  state  constitution  of  that  day.  This 
phrase  was  that  the  people  of  Missouri  did  mutually  agree  to 
form  and  establish  "a  free  and  independent  republic."  There 
is,  however,  no  reason  to  attach  special  significance  to  the 
word  republic.  It  was  merely  a  novelty  that  carried  no  import 
except  to  the  Fourth  of  July  orator  seeking  political  favors. 

A  number  of  provisions,  applying  to  the  legislature,  was 
inserted  that  were  followed  by  few  of  the  twenty-three  states. 


Origin  and  Content  of  the  Constitution.  251 

A  two  year  term  for  state  representatives  obtained  in  only  four 
states.  An  age  qualification  of  twenty-four  years  for  repre- 
sentatives was  present  in  only  two  states.  In  only  two  states 
was  an  age  qualification  of  thirty  years  provided  for  state 
senators.  Biennial  state  elections  were  provided  for  in  only 
four  states.  A  corrupt  practices  act  of  equal  worth  obtained 
in  only  two  states.  A  provision  empowering  the  general  as- 
sembly to  punish  by  "fine  or  imprisonment"  those,  not  members, 
for  contempt  of  authority  of  the  legislature,  obtained  in  no 
other  state  constitution.  No  other  state  constitution  gave  so 
much  protection  to  the  rights  of  the  slave  as  did  this  one, 
although  no  other  state  made  it  mandatory  on  the  legislature 
to  prohibit  free  negroes  from  coming  into  the  state.  Only 
five  other  state  constitutions  directed  the  legislature  to  make 
laws  regulating  the  manner  whereby  suits  might  be  brought 
against  the  state.  In  only  two  other  state  constitutions  were 
biennial  sessions  of  the  legislature  provided  for,  the  others 
having  annual  sessions.  Finally,  only  one  other  state  con- 
stitution provided  for  a  revision  of  the  state's  laws  at  regular 
intervals  of  time. 

The  noteworthy  provisions  apply  to  the  executive  depart- 
ment were,  with  one  or  two  exceptions,  distinct  inprovements 
over  the  other  state  constitutions  of  that  day.  Only  two  states 
required  the  governor  to  be  at  least  thirty-five  years  old  and 
only  three  states  made  his  citizenship  qualification  so  high.  In 
only  three  states  was  the  term  of  the  governor  as  long  as  in 
Missouri,  i.  e.,  four  years.  With  the  single  exception  of  Ken- 
tucky, Missouri  was  alone  at  this  time  in  allowing  the  governor 
by  constitutional  provision  ten  days  in  which  to  pass  on  bills, 
the  other  states  either  placed  a  shorter  time  limit  or  made  no 
mention  of  this.  An  officer  called  the  "Auditor"  was  provided 
for  in  only  three  constitutions  and  in  no  state  was  his  term  four 
years  or  his  tenure  appointive  by  the  governor  and  senate — 
being  usually  left  to  the  legislature.  In  no  state  constitution 
was  there  so  liberal  a  provision  for  the  salary  of  the  governor, 
no  state  set  forth  the  minimum  amount  he  should  receive  and 
one  state  had  a  maximum  amount  that  was  less  than  two-fifths 
of  Missouri's  minimum.     Only  two  states  provided  for  a  four 


252  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

year  term  for  the  lieutenant  governor  and  only  one  of  these 
required  him  to  be  at  least  thirty-five  years  old.  No  other 
state  constitution  went  as  far  as  Missouri's  in  providing  for  the 
succession  in  case  of  temporary  vacancy  in  the  office  of  governor 
and  only  two  states  had  such  a  detailed  provision  on  the  election 
of  a  governor  to  fill  the  vacancy  occurring  during  the  unexpired 
term  of  the  regular  incumbent. 

In  the  framing  of  the  provisions  on  the  judiciary,  the 
constitution  followed  more  closely  the  provisions  in  other 
constitutions  than  was  the  case  in  either  the  legislative  or 
executive  departments.  This  was  natural.  Of  the  three  de- 
partments of  government,  the  judiciary  of  the  states  was  the 
last  to  succumb  to  the  leveling  spirit  of  democracy.  The 
peculiar  conservatism  that  has  for  centuries  attached  itself  in 
English  speaking  countries  to  the  law  interpreting  department 
of  the  State,  the  general  high  regard  in  which  it  has  been  held, 
and  the  sanctity  of  stability  which  has  surrounded  both  bench 
and  bar  and  which  has  enabled  them  to  follow  precedent  and 
custom  instead  of  being  subject  to  changes,  are  all  easily  per- 
ceived by  any  one  who  has  traced  in  even  an  elementary  manner 
the  institutional  growth  of  English  and  American  history.  The 
Missouri  constitution  of  1820  was  no  exception  to  the  spirit  of 
the  times  in  this  respect. 

Several  departures  were,  however,  made  in  the  Missouri 
judiciary  department.  Only  one  other  state  constitution  pro- 
vided for  a  minimum  salary  for  the  judges  of  the  higher  courts. 
One  state  constitution  did,  however,  mention  what  the  salary 
should  be.  No  other  state  constitution  provided  for  a  minimum 
age  qualification  for  the  judge  and  only  five  states  had  a  maximum 
age  qualification. 

The  provisions  in  the  Missouri  constitution  relating  to  a 
state  bank  were  exceptionally  conservative. 

It  is  also  worthy  of  mention  that  only  one  state  constitu- 
tion at  that  time  provided  an  easier  method  of  amendment, 
i.  e.,  where  an  amending  clause  could  be  found. 

The  last  article  in  the  Missouri  constitution  of  1820, 
article  XIII  on  the  "Declaration  of  Rights,"  was  so  uniformly 
similar   to   corresponding   articles  in  many  other  state   consti- 


Origin  and  Content  of  the  Constitution.  253 

tutions  that  it  presents  no  special  points  of  variation  of  either 
novelty  or  importance.  The  same  general  spirit  permeated 
the  bills  of  rights  of  the  various  constitutions  and  the  Missouri 
constitution  was  no  exception. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

A  DE  FACTO  STATE. 

Missouri  became  a  state  on  Wednesday,  July  19,  1820. 
On  that  day  was  adopted  the  first  state  constitution  of  Missouri.^ 
This  constitution  immediately  superseded  in  sovereign  au- 
thority the  former  organic  laws  of  Missouri,  i.  e.,  the  acts  of 
Congress.  Although  provisions  were  made  for  the  territorial 
laws  and  officers  remaining  in  force  and  in  office  until  the  former 
were  abrogated,  amended  or  superseded  by  later  state  laws, 
and  until  the  latter  were  displaced  with  state  officers,  such 
territorial  laws  and  officers  derived  their  legal  power  from  the 
express  sanction  of  the  constitution  and  not  from  the  territorial 
forms  of  government  of  1812  and  1816.^  Even  on  the  day  the 
constitution  was  adopted,  the  president  of  the  convention, 
acting  under  the  authority  vested  in  him  by  the  constitution, 
exercised  a  power  of  the  highest  character,  that  by  the  territorial 
laws  was  expressly  vested  in  the  governor.  This  power  was 
the  issuing  of  writs  of  election  to  the  sheriffs  of  the  various 
counties  to  hold  a  special  election.^  Not  only  were  the  writs 
of  the  first  state  election  issued  by  David  Barton  on  July  19, 
1820,  but  they  were  issued  under  the  authority  of  "the  State 
of  Missouri."  The  following  is  a  copy  of  one  of  these  writs 
taken  from  the  Jackson  (Mo.)  Herald  of  July  22,  1820: 


»  This  constitution  was  never  submitted  to  a  popular  vote.  The  Missouri 
Enabling  Act  was  silent  on  the  point  and  the  Missouri  convention  of  1820  made 
no  provision  for  having  the  constitution  submitted  to  the  people.  The  preamble 
of  the  constitution  stated  that  on  Monday,  June  12,  1820,  the  delegates  in  the 
convention  did  "mutually  agree  to  form  and  establish  a  free  and  independent 
republic,  by  the  name  of  'THE  STATE  OF  MISSOURI,'  "  and  for  the  govern- 
ment thereof  they  did  "ordain  and  establish  this  constitution."  That  the  con- 
vention had  authority  to  form  a  constitution  and  state  government  is  obvious 
from  section  four  of  the   Enabling   Act. 

*  Missouri  Constitution,  Schedule,  sec.   1-5. 

»  Mo.  Ter.  Laws,  sec.  15,  20,  22,  of  act  of  Jan.  4,  1814,  (pp.  299ff).  C/.,  also 
sec.  7  of  Act  of  Cong.  June  4,  1812.  (U.  S.  Stat,  at  Large,  II.  745flf.)  Mo.  Const. 
Schedule,  Sec.  9. 


(254) 


A  De  Facto  Slate.  255 

The  State  of  Missouri 
To  the  Sheriff  of  the  County  of  Cape  Girardeau  or  in  case  of  vacancy,  to  the 

Coroner  of  said  County,  Greeting: 

You  are  hereby  required,  that  you  cause  an  Election  to  be  held,  in  the  manner 
prescribed  by  law.  at  the  several  places  of  holding  Elections  within  your  county, 
on  the  fourth  Monday  of  August  next,  for  one  Governor,  one  Lieutenant-Governor 
of  this  state;  a  Representative  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  for  the  residue 
of  the  sixteenth  Congress,  a  Representative  for  the  seventeenth  Congress;  two 
Senators  for  the  district  composed  of  your  said  county  and  the  county  of  New 
Madrid,  and  four  Representatives  from  said  county  to  the  General  Assembly;  one 
Sheriff  and  one  Coroner  for  your  county — Herein   fail   not. 

WITNESS,  David  Barton,  President  of  the  Convention  at  St.  Louis,  the 
19th  day  of  July,  1820,  and  of  American  Independence  the  4.5th. 

DAVID   BARTON. 

The  regular  territorial  election  of  1820  should  have  taken 
place  on  the  first  Monday  in  August:  this  election  was  never 
held  because  the  territorial  laws  had  been  abrogated  by  the 
Missouri  constitution  on  this  point.  Several  other  examples 
might  be  cited  to  show  that  beginning  July  19,  1820,  Missouri 
was  a  de  facto  state  but  it  does  not  seem  necessary  here.* 

At  least  a  month  before  Missouri  had  adopted  a  constitu- 
tion and  become  a  state,  and  more  than  two  months  before  the 
first  state  election,  the  "wire-pulling"  of  candidates  for  both 
elective  and  appointive  officers  had  begun.  The  convention 
had  barely  settled  down  to  the  work  of  framing  an  organic  law 
for  Missouri  when  it  was  more  or  less  torn  by  the  political 
aspirations  of  those  in  and  out  of  that  body.  It  is  impossible 
to  say  how  much  this  struggle  for  office  holding  affected  the  fram- 
ing of  the  constitution;  it  is  not  improbable,  however,  that  its 
influence  was  great.  Some  sections  of  that  document,  e.  g., 
the  high  salary  clauses,  were  probably  the  result  of  the  work 
of  those  who  expected  to  benefit  by  those  sections.  The  op- 
portunities for  "logrolling"  were  too  many  not  to  have  been 
taken  advantage  of  by  the  leaders.  The  "caucus"  was  as 
prominent  as  in  the  hey-day  of  later  years  and  as  fully  com- 
mented on  by  the  opposition.  The  secrecy  that  veiled  the 
work  of  the  convention,  the  almost  criminally  unsatisfactory 
character  of  the  Journal  on  debates  and  votes,  and  the  tardiness 


*  Cf.  Mo.  Ter.  Laws,  sec.  1,  11,  of  Jan.  4.  1814  (pp.  297f),  regarding  time  of 
election,  officers  to  be  elected,  and  qualifications  of  electors.  Also  act  of  Congress 
of  June  4,  1812,  sec.  6.  iU.  S.  Stat,  at  Large,  II.  745.)  A  proclamation  of  Fred- 
erick Bates,  as  acting  governor  of  Missouri  Territory,  dated  July  20,  1820,  does 
not  disprove  the  position  taken  here.  The  proclamation  referred  to  offered 
reward  for  the  arrest  of  a  certain  criminal.     {St.  Charles    Mo.,  Aug.  12,  1820.) 


256  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

in  the  distribution  of  that  document,  were  all  calculated  to  and 
partially  succeeded  in  keeping  the  people  uninformed  on  what 
some  of  their  representatives  had  done.  This  much  is  certain 
that  the  plans  and  counter-plans  in  the  convention  that  stretched 
from  the  future  occupants  of  the  Bench  of  Missouri  and  of  the 
State  Executive  Department  to  the  Halls  of  Congress,  were  as 
vigorously  fought  for  as  were  those  schemes  over  the  location 
of  the  temporary  and  permanent  seats  of  government  of  the 
new  State.  This  political  campaigning  was  confined  in  the 
convention  to  a  minority  of  the  delegates  but  this  minority 
included  the  leaders  of  that  body.  It  is  not  improbable  that 
these  leaders  were  forced  to  compromise  on  issues  in  order  to 
forward  their  ambitions  and  although  the  constitution  suffered 
in  some  of  these  compromises  it  may  also  have  gained  in  others. 

The  early  campaigning,  which  was  in  full  sway  by  June 
and  which  probably  had  its  inception  in  May,  was  over  the 
state  offices  of  governor,  supreme  court  judges,  and  the  two 
United  States  senators  to  be  chosen  from  Missouri.  Although 
only  one  of  these,  the  governor,  was  elective  by  popular  vote, 
the  tenure  of  the  other  five  rested  on  the  will  of  the  governor 
and  the  members  of  the  general  assembly.  The  importance 
of  the  governor  was  further  increased  by  his  power  of  appoint- 
ment of  the  chancellor  and  of  all  the  members  of  the  executive 
department  except  the  treasurer,  which,  like  United  States 
senators,  was  exclusively  under  the  control  of  the  legislature. 
The  office  of  representative  in  Congress  was  not  subject  to  dis- 
pute as  it  was  the  desire  of  a  majority  of  the  inhabitants  to 
see  John  Scott,  the  last  territorial  delegate  from  Missouri, 
returned  to  Washington.  No  One  openly  opposed  his  re-election 
and  no  other  name  was  on  the  ballot  for  this  office.  The  office 
of  lieutenant-governor  was  not  sought  after  in  the  early  part  of 
the  campaign.  Towards  the  close,  however,  several  candidates 
appeared. 

The  ability  and  public  record  of  William  Clark,  the  ter- 
ritorial governor  of  Missouri,  and  the  many  friends  attached 
to  him,  furnished  a  strong  recommendation  for  his  candidacy 
for  the  office  of  chief  executive  of  the  new  State.  The  lingering 
illness  of  his  wife,  however,  who  at  that  time  was  in  Virginia, 


A  De  Facto  State.  257 

acted  as  a  check  on  whatever  poHtical  ambitions  were  enter- 
tained by  Clark. ^  He  refused  at  first  to  have  his  name  con- 
sidered and  his  secretary,  Frederick  Bates,  was  urged  for  the 
place.  It  is  not  clear  who  first  brought  Bates  out  but  it  is  not 
improbable  that  one  of  his  endorsers  was  Charless,  editor  of 
the  Missouri  Gazette.^  Bates  had  enjoyed  public  office  in 
Missouri  Territory  and  in  the  Territory  of  Louisiana  for  over 
a  decade.  His  appointment  to  the  secretaryship  of  these  two 
territories  and  the  satisfactory  manner  in  which  he  had  dis- 
charged the  duties  of  his  office,  frequently  being  also  the  acting 
territorial  governor,  made  him  well  qualified  to  hold  the  office 
of  governor  of  Missouri.  Bates  was  probably  induced  to  become  a 
candidate  both  by  some  of  the  supporters  and  by  some  of  the 
enemies  of  Clark  as  well  as  by  his  own  personal  friends.  Up 
to  this  time  political  conditions  were  unsettled.  The  informal 
announcement  of  Bates  and  his  endorsement  by  Charless  gave 
impulse  to  the  wire-pulling  of  the  politicians. 

Alexander  McNair  was  brought  forward  as  a  candidate  for 
governor.  McNair  probably  announced  his  own  candidacy. 
He  was  at  once  taken  up  and  endorsed  by  those  members  of 
the  St.  Louis  caucus  who  looked  upon  him  as  being  less  dis- 
tasteful than  Bates.  These  politicians  probably  regarded 
McNair  as  being  simply  the  lesser  of  two  evils.  They  also 
thought  he  could  be  worked  to  do  their  bidding  and  they  began 
sending  out  letters  endorsing  his  candidacy.  On  finding  McNair 
independent  of  their  wishes  and  requests,  they  at  once  switched 
their  support  to  Clark  and  countermanded  their  McNair  let- 
ters.^ 

The  public  and  military  record  of  McNair  in  Missouri 
Territory,  combined  with  his  model  and  hospitable  private  life, 
made  him  good,  political  timber.  He  had  many  friends  and 
few  personal  enemies.  Besides  possessing  a  popular  record  in 
his  administration  of  the  United  States  Land  Office  at  St. 
Louis,   McNair  was  a   "mixer."     He  was   more   popular   than 

»  Mrs.  Julia  Clark,  wife  of  Gov.  Clark,  died  at  Fotheringay,  Va..  on  June 
27,      (A/0.   IntelL.  Sept.  2,   1820.) 

«  See  article  by  "Fair  Play"  in  Mo.  Gaz.,  Aug.  23,  1820. 
'  Article  by  "Fair  Play"  in  Mo.  Gaz.,  Aug.  23,  1820. 
M  S — 17 


258  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

Clark  and  his  campaign  in  July  and  August  showed  his  ability 
to  discern  and  to  present  those  political  issues  that  advanced 
his  cause. 

The  announcement  of  McNair  as  a  candidate  was  followed 
closely  by  that  of  Clark.  It  appears  that  the  personal  per- 
suasion of  friends  and  of  the  St.  Louis  politicians  induced  Clark 
to  give  his  consent  to  run.  Bates,  whose  candidacy  had  been 
more  rumored  than  settled,  withdrew  from  the  race.  The  final 
entrance  of  Clark  and  McNair  as  rival  candidates  for  the 
governorship  gave  a  definite  tone  to  the  campaign  that  changed 
little  up  to  the  day  of  the  election.^  The  support  of  Charless 
and  of  the  Gazette  followers  swung  to  McNair;  the  machine 
politicians  supported  Clark. 

Clark  was  the  choice  of  the  leaders  of  the  convention. 
The  prominent  politicians  and  lawyers  of  St.  Louis  were  for 
him.  These  combined  with  his  political  friends  throughout 
the  Territory  made  his  position  a  strong  one.  The  well  known 
St.  Louis  lawyer  junto  of  the  spring  of  1820  became  the  caucus 
of  the  summer  of  that  year.  Joseph  Charless,  editor  of  the 
Missouri  Gazette,  waged  war  against  the  latter,  especially  against 
his  rival,  Benton — editor  of  the  St.  Louis  Enquirer — ,  with  his 
characteristic,  fiery  articles.  Benton  played  safe  in  combating 
Charless  and  in  pulling  the  wires  for  his  own  advancement. 
During  June  the  caucus  met  several  times.  A  slate  was  finally 
made  with  Clark  at  its  head;  Benton  and  Jones  were  put  down 
for  United  States  senators;  Barton — probably  David — ,  Harper 
and  Cook — probably  John  D. — ,  for  Supreme  Court  judges. 
A  majority  of  the  members  of  the  convention  had  nothing  to 
do  with  these  plans  but  all  were  aware  of  what  was  being  done. 
Finally  even  in  the  debates  of  the  convention,  principles  and 
issues  on  the  constitution  were  dropped,  "in  order  to  indulge 
in  invidious  reflections  on  motives,  such  as  personal  views, 
intrigue,  office  hunting,  carving  and  dividing  the  loaves  afid  fishes, 
etc.,  together  with  exculpatory  answers  of  antagonists."  " 


«  Letter  of  L.  Jno.  O'Fallon,  St.  Louis,  June  24,  1820,  to  Gen.  T.  A.  Smith. 
{Smith  Mss.) 

»  Mo.  Gazette,  editorial,  June  28,  July  12,  1820. 


A  De  Facto  State.  259 

Although  the  slate  of  the  caucus  did  not  go  through  as 
originally  planned,  it  speaks  well  for  the  political  ability  of  that 
body  that  every  candidate  on  it  except  Clark  was  elected  or 
appointed  to  an  important  state  office.  Benton  and  Barton 
reached  the  United  States  Senate;  Harper  was  appointed  State 
Chancellor;  and  Jones  and  Cook  were  appointed  two  of  the 
first  three  Supreme  Court  Judges  of  Missouri.  It  appears  that 
the  first  slate  was  later  changed  and  some  of  the  names  dropped. 
Clark  and  Benton  were,  however,  the  conspicuous  names  that 
remained  before  the  public  and,  although  the  Gazette  was 
friendly  towards  several  of  the  candidates  selected  by  the  caucus, 
Charless  never  ceased  to  oppose  the  candidacy  of  Clark  and 
Benton.i" 

Charless  was  also  opposed  to  the  methods  as  well  as  to  the 
lawyer-composition  of  the  caucus.  He  wrote  in  part  as  follows: 
"It  was  a  junto  or  caucus  we  alluded  to  who  availed  themselves 
of  the  opportunity  which  the  meeting  of  the  Convention  af- 
forded to  effect  their  selfish  designs.  We  appeal  to  almost 
every  member  of  the  Convention  whether  he  was  not  personally 
tried  to  be  prevailed  to  pledge  himself  to  the  support  of  at  least 
two  of  the  candidates  named,  viz. :     Governor  Clark  and  Colonel 

Benton Governor  Clark  and  Colonel  Benton  were 

two  candidates  fixed  and  determined  upon.  If  the  story 
enrages  the  noble  minded  Missourian,  against  some  of  the  men 

named,  it  will  effect  a  desirable  object But  every 

friend  of  the  state  will  oppose  the  men  who  arranged  and  plotted 
the  scheme,  and  the  public  well  know  who  are  the  authors  of 
it  ...  .  [Dare  they  deny]  that  a  certain  set  of  men  met  several 
times  in  St.  Louis,  during  the  meeting  of  the  Convention, 
whose  whole  object  was  the  determination  how  to  dispose  of 
the  loaves  and  fishes  in  the  future  state  of  Missouri.  Dare 
they  deny  that  some  of  the  friends  of  Governor  Clark  wrote  in 
favor  of  Colonel  McNair,  at  a  time  when  it  was  understood 
that  Governor  Clark  would  not  run.  Dare  they  deny,  that 
these  letters  were  afterwards  countermanded.  And  dare  they 
deny  that  all  this  was  done  by  direction  of  the  caucus  or  junto, 


^0  Mo.  Gaz.,  Aug.  9,  1820,  editorial. 


260  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

or  whatever  else  the  quibbUng  editor  [Benton]  may  please  to 
call  the  meeting."  ^^ 

Of  all  the  leaders  of  the  caucus  and  of  all  the  candidates 
favored  by  it,  none  was  so  bitterly  attacked  as  Benton.  In 
an  editorial  which  appeared  in  the  Gazette  on  July  12,  1820, 
the  future  statesman  of  Missouri  was  thus  described: 

"A  man  crimsoned  with  the  blood  of  one  of  our  most  promising  young  citi- 
zens, under  circumstances  of  cold  and  deliberate  calculation,  whose  only  fault 
was  to  be  in  the  way  of  his  ambitious  designs — whose  character  and  reputation 
was  spotless,  and  operated  as  a  reproach  to  that  of  his  ferocious  enemy.  We 
say  that  such  a  blood-thirsty  man  is  much  worse  than  'a  Panther.'  "  n 

The  St.  Louis  Enquirer  was  kept  busy  trying  to  explain 
and  side-step  the  charges  of  the  Gazette.  It  seems  to  have 
failed  in  defending  its  cause  and  in  order  to  divert  public  opinion 
made  the  contemptible  charge  that  the  slavery-restrictionists 
were  being  headed  by  McNair.  Early  in  the  campaign  the 
Enquirer,  in  answer  to  an  article  that  had  appeared  in  the  Ga- 
zette, tried  to  connect  the  restrictionists  and  the  McNair  sup- 
porters— especially  Charless.  The  falseness  of  this  statement 
is  shown  by  the  fact  that  of  the  nineteen  candidates  for  election 
to  the  General  Assembly  in  St.  Louis  county,  only  two  were 
in  favor  of  restriction  and  one  of  these  was  a  Clark  man.  The 
single  restrictionist  candidate  in  St.  Charles  county  was  a  Clark 
man.  No  restrictionist  candidates  were  up  at  all  in  Jefferson 
and  Washington  Counties. ^^ 

The  Gazette- Enquirer  controversies  revealed  the  machine 
methods  of  the  campaign:  the  public  campaign  waged  by  the 
candidates  and  their  friends  was  described  principally  in  private 
letters,  public  letters,  and  newspaper  articles  that  appeared 
over  anonymous  names.  While  the  machine  campaign  held  the 
attention  of  St.  Louis  and  the  vicinity,  the  public  campaign 
was  given  greater  prominence  in  the  county  press.  The  echoes 
of  the  bitter  Charless-Benton  struggle  waged  in  St.  Louis  hardly 
reached  the  ears  of  the  voters  in  the  Boone's  Lick  county;  the 
latter  were  interested  in  the    public    campaign  conducted   by 


"  Ibid. 

>'  Charless  here  referred  to  the  Benton-Lucas  duel,  in  which  Benton  murdered 
the  son  of  the  eminent  jurist.  Judge  John  B.  C.  Lucas. 

^*Mo.  Gaz.,  Aug.  23,  1820,  article  by  "Fair  Play;"  c/.,  ibid.,  July  12.  1820; 
Enquirer,  Aug.  12,  1820. 


A  De  Facto  Slate.  261 

the  friends  and   opponents  of  Clark  and   McNair  and   in   the 
personal   electioneering   of   McNair. 

The  absence  of  Clark  from  Missouri  during  the  campaign 
may  have  hurt  his  cause  but  it  is  equally  probable  that  it  gave 
him  many  votes  through  the  sympathy  of  those  who  knew  of 
the  severe  illness  of  Mrs.  Clark.  Further,  Clark's  candidacy 
was  ably  conducted  by  his  friends  and  especially  by  the  St. 
Louis  lawyers  and  by  other  aspirants  for  political  honors 
scattered  over  the  State. 

Following  closely  on  giving  his  consent  to  run,  Clark 
wrote  a  public  letter  "To  the  People  of  Missouri."  ^^  This 
letter  was  modest  in  tone  and  reserved  in  language.  It  con- 
tained no  mention  of  his  opponent  and  merely  set  forth  in 
concise  language  Clark's  biography.  In  it  Clark  stated  that  his 
early  life  had  been  spent  in  Kentucky;  that  he  had  come  to 
Louisiana  in  the  fall  of  1803;  had  lived  in  Missouri  seventeen 
years;  and  had  been  its  governor  seven  years.  He  added  with 
pride  that  he  had  received  commissions  from  four  Presidents — 
Washington,  Jefferson,  Madison  and  Monroe.  After  stating 
that  he  would  be  away  from  Missouri  till  after  the  election, 
Clark  concluded:  ''I  cannot  flatter  myself  that  I  am  worthy  to 
occupy  the  first  office  among  you;  but  if  called  to  it  by  your 
voice,  I  shall  bring  with  me  a  fervent  wish  to  contribute  to  your 
prosperity,  and  to  maintain  the  honor  of  a  State  whose  name 
must  forever  be  dear  to  me." 

The  friends  of  Clark  urged  his  case  before  the  people  in 
newspaper  articles.  The  military  and  civil  record  of  Clark, 
his  negotiations  with  the  Indians,  and  his  joint-leadership  of 
the  even  then  famous  Lewis  and  Clark  Expedition,  were  his 
strongest  assets  in  public  esteem. ^^  His  part  in  extinguishing 
Indian  titles  in  Missouri  w^as  also  strongly  emphasized  and  struck 
a  responsive  chord  in  the  hearts  of  the  frontiersmen.^'^  Clark's 
gentlemanly  qualities  and  his  knowledge  of  government  were 
also  urged  and  one  writer  with  modern  political  astuteness 
called  him  the  "poor  man's  friend."  ^^ 


»'  This  letter  was  dated  St.  Louis.  July  2,  1820.      {Mo.  Intell.  Aug.  26,  1820.) 

^^Mo.  Intell.  Aug.  12,  1820,  article  by  "An  Observer." 

»'  Mo.  Intell.  Aug.  26,  1820,  article  copies  from  the  Enquirer. 

^*  Ibid.,  article  by  "G." 


262  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

The  opposition  to  Clark  made  few  charges  against  him. 
Clark's  private  life  was  exemplary.  His  present  troubles 
secured  for  him  the  sympathy  of  even  his  enemies.  His  public 
record  had  been  a  long  and  honorable  one.  The  only  criticism 
urged  against  it  by  his  enemies  was  Clark's  laxness  in  protecting 
the  frontier  against  the  Indians. ^^  The  most  damaging  argu- 
ment against  Clark  was  his  affiliation  with  the  lawyer  caucus 
at  St.  Louis.  It  was  sarcastically  said  by  one  that  the  delegates 
from  the  convention  had  returned  home  friends  of  Clark  and  had 
since  always  spoken  of  him  as  a  "great,  good  and  wise  man."  ^^ 
Since  at  this  time  many  of  the  delegates  had  fallen  into  public 
disfavor  on  account  of  the  high  salary  clauses  in  the  constitution, 
their  advocacy  of  Clark  only  served  to  fasten  suspicion  on  both 
them  and  their  candidate.  In  short  in  Clark's  strength  lay  his 
weakness.  His  supporters  and  especially  his  campaign  man- 
agers had  displeased  all  by  their  caucus  methods.  It  seemed  to 
the  voters  that  a  ring  had  determined  to  dictate  to  the  people, 
and  the  people  in  turn  resolved  to  rebel  against  such  plans. 
They  turned  to  McNair,  who  was  opposed  by  the  caucus  and 
who  had  voted  against  high  salaries. 

McNair  began  his  campaign  early.  It  is  probable  that 
his  obvious  inactivity  in  the  convention  and  the  inconspicuous 
part  he  played  in  the  framing  of  the  constitution  were  due  to 
his  political  ambitions  for  the  governorship.  McNair  waged 
a  personal  campaign  from  the  beginning.  He  not  only  appealed 
to  individuals  but  he  made  a  popular  appeal  to  the  people. 
His  methods  were  democratic,  savoring  a  little  of  the  demagogue, 
but  did  not  degenerate  to  personal  abuse  of  his  antagonist.  He 
"stumped"  the  state  and  outside  of  St.  Louis  did  or  said  nothing 
to  incur  either  bitter  hostility  or  contempt.  The  first  recorded 
public  utterance  of  McNair  was  made  in  June.  He  is  reported 
to  have  said  that  he  calculated  on  a  majority  of  five  hundred  in 
St.  Louis  county,  which  would  consist  of  ''the  hottest  farmers'' 
who  were  able  to  appreciate  his  merits.'-^     This  well  planned 


^*  Mo.  Intell.  Aug.  5.  2G.  1820.  an  article  by  "A  Citizen." 
*"  Ibid.,  Aug.  19,  1820,  an  article  by  "Shelby." 

"  Letter  of  L.  Jno.  O'Fallon,  dated  St.  Louis,  July  24.  1820.  to  Gen.  T.  A. 
Smith.     {Smith    Mss.)     O'Fallon    favored    Clark. 


A  De  Facto  State.  263 

vote-getter  statement  was  followed  by  a  brief,  modest  public 
letter  to  the  people  of  the  State  asking  for  their  support.     In  a 
postscript  attached  to  this  letter  as  published  in  the  Missouri 
Intelligencer  of   August   26,    McNair   stated   that   he  regretted 
that    the    Journals    of    the    convention     had     not     been    dis- 
tributed, implying    the   culpability  of  the    leaders   of    the  con- 
vention, so  that  the  people  could  see  how  he  and  other  delegates 
had  voted.     He  added  that  he  had  and  still  opposed  the  high 
salaries  of  the  governor  and  judges  and   would    recommend  to 
the   legislature   their   altera tion.'-^^     Qne   of    the    chief    political 
assets  of  McNair  was  his  stand  against  these  high  salaries.     It 
was  a  popular  stand  and  was  reinforced  by  the  fact  that  he  had 
voted   against   incorporating   such   provisions   in   the   constitu- 
tion.    His  record  as  Register  of  the  St.  Louis  Land  Office  was 
also  a  recommendation  for  him.     While  holding  that  position 
he  had  deliberately  disregarded  the  unpopular  instructions  of 
his  superior  and  had  granted  more  than  a  quarter  section  of 
land   to   individuals.     This   action   had   been   opposed   by   the 
land  speculators  but  had  met  with  the  approbation  of  the  pioneer 
settlers.     Further,  the  fact  that  McNair's  interpretation  of  the 
law  on  this  point  was  found  to  be  correct  and  the  orders  of  his 
superior  were  later  changed,  served  to  strengthen  his  cause. ^^ 
The   friends  of   McNair   made   prominent  his   military   record 
and  also  dwelt  on  his  private  life.     One  writer  said  that  he  was 
"an   exemplary   father   and   husband,   and   a  warm   friend."  ^^ 
His  hospitaUty,  his  private  virtues  and  public  services,    were 
spoken  of  in  the  highest  terms  and  little  refutation  was  at- 
tempted in  public  by  the  opposition.-^ 

A  letter  was  written  from  St.  Louis  late  in  the  campaign 
accusing  McNair  of  being  an  emancipator  but  this  charge  was 
publicly  denied  by  McNair's  friends.^^  More  serious  and 
better  founded  charges  did  appear,  however,  that  were  not  denied. 
He  was  justly  accused  of  having  officially  done  nothing  in  the 

2»  The  letter  was  dated  St.  Louis,  Jxily  21,  1820,  and  the  postscript  Franklin, 
Aug.  21,  1820. 

»  Mo.  Intell.,  Aug.  19,  1820,  article  by  "Shelby." 
"  Ibid. 

ii  Mo.  Intell.,  Aug.  5,  1820,  article  by  "A  Citizen." 
**  Ibid..  Aug.  26,  1820,  article  by  "A  Citizen." 


264  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

convention  except  vote;  that  no  part  of  the  constitution  owed 
any  of  its  excellence  to  him;  that  while  the  names  of  Barton, 
Bates  and  Cook  were  familiar  ones  in  the  convention,  the  name 
of  McNair  meant  nothing;  that  his  political  aspirations  and  his 
ignorance  combined  were  the  reasons  of  his  inactivity  in  the 
convention;  that  although  he  was  a  good  citizen,  a  model  hus- 
band, parent  and  neighbor,  he  lacked  capacity  and  independence 
to  hold  the  office  of  governor ;  and  that  he  could  not  be  compared 
with  Clark  in  knowing  law.^^  That  McNair's  methods  were  not 
dissimilar  from  those  later  employed  by  some  politicians  and 
that  he  was  also  not  free  from  the  strings  of  financial  embarrass- 
ment, are  revealed  in  the  following  extract  from  a  private  letter 
written  by    the    well    known   St.    Louisan,    L.    Jno.    O'Fallon: 

"The  election  is  getting  very  warm — McNair  is  making  the  greatest  exertions 
in  the  tippling  shops  of  this  place — he  can,  at  any  time,  now,  be  found  in  the  back 
street,  among  the  dirtiest  black  guards — asserting,  that  he  must,  and  will,  be  elected 
— he  is  much  involved  in  de..  [torn  out]  ing  been  protested  in  bank'f our  times,  [torn 
out]  to  secure  the  votes  and  support  of  his  creditors,  assures  them  that  his  election 
will  tend  much  to  extricate  him  from  his  embarassments — ."  *» 

It  is  quite  probable  that  at  least  one  of  the  reasons  for 
McNair  later  appointing  some  of  the  machine  politicians  to 
office  was  due  to  the  pressure  of  these  very  creditors. 

The  campaign  of  John  Scott  for  representative  in  Congress 
was  confined  to  a  public  address,  printed  in  the  newspapers 
of  the  State.  In  this  address  Scott  urged  his  past  record,  his 
experience  in  Congress — which,  he  said,  would  be  an  aid  in 
securing  final  admission — ,  and  his  success  in  getting  land  grants 
for  Missouri  as  a  State.  He  concluded  by  defending  his  posi- 
tion in  regard  to  the  apportionment  of  delegates.^^  As  Scott 
had  no  opponent,  no  attack  was  made  on  his  candidacy. 

The  campaign  for  the  office  of  lieutenant  governor,  al- 
though not  so  actively  conducted  as  was  that  for  governor, 
engaged  the  attention  of  more  candidates,  there  being  four 
that  presented  their  names  to  the  people.  The  first  of  these 
to  announce  his  position  was  General  Jonathan  Ramsay,  a 
delegate  to  the  convention  from  Montgomery  county .^°     The 


"  Mo.  IntelL,  Aug.  12.  26,  1820,  articles  by  "An  Observer." 

»»  Letter  dated  St.  Louis.  July  27,  1820,  to  Gen.  T.  A.  Smith.     Smith  Mss. 

»»  Mo.  IntelL,  Aug.  12,  1820. 

"Mo.  IntelL,  Aug.  5,   1820. 


A  De  Facto  State.  265 

record  made  by   Ramsay  in  the  convention  was  a  good  one. 
He  was  also   an   honest  and   able   business   man   and   farmer. 
His  military  career  in  Kentucky  was  a  long  and  honorable  one. 
Nothing  could  be  urged  against  his  private  life.     He  lacked, 
however,    the    necessary    state-residence    qualification    of    four 
years  for  the  office  of  lieutenant  governor  and  publicly  with- 
drew   from    the    race.^^     Another   candidate   was    the   wealthy 
St.  Louis  business  man  and  financier.  General  Wm.  H.  Ashley. 
Ashley's  name  had  not  then  become  associated  with  the  fur 
trade,  in  which  he  rose  to  such  prominence,  but  he  was  already 
one  of  the  most  influential  men  in  the  State.     He  had  success- 
fully engaged   in   manufacturing  gunpowder  at   Potosi,   was  a 
wealthy  land  owner,  a  big  real  estate  dealer,  and  was  interested 
in  the  old  Bank  of  St.  Louis.     His  military  record  in  Missouri 
was  an  asset  as  well  as  were  his  long  established  residence  here 
and  the  influence  of  his  wife's  relatives  in  southeast  Missouri.32 
The  principal  opponent  of  Ashley  was  Nathaniel  Cook,  a  dele- 
gate to  the  convention  from  Madison  county.     The  two  Cooks, 
John  D.  and  Nathaniel,  were  prominent  political  characters  in 
southeast   Missouri.     Both   were   popular   and   widely   known. 
They  were,  however,  in  accord  with  the  St.  Louis  caucus  and 
this  probably  detracted   much   from   the  influence  exerted  by 
Nathaniel  Cook  in  this  campaign .^^     The  fourth  candidate  was 
Henry   Elliott  of  Ste.   Genevieve.     His  part  in  the  campaign 
was  not  a  conspicuous  one."** 

The  campaign  for  the  election  of  state  legislators  and  of 
county  sheriffs  and  coroners  was  noteworthy  in  the  number 
of  candidates.  In  Howard  county  alone  there  were  at  least 
thirty-nine  candidates'^  and  in  St.  Louis  county  there  were 
nineteen  for  the  general  assembly  alone. '^  Sentiment  was 
strong  against  electing  delegates  to  the  legislature  and  this 
sentiment  was  given  expression  at  the  polls  in  sending  only 
seven  of  the  forty-one  constitution  framers  to  the  first  general 

»i  Mo.  IntelL,  Aug.  19,  1820. 

*^  Mo.  IntelL,  Aug.  12.  1820;  Houck,  Hist,  of  Mo.,  III.  256f. 

»Afo.  Intel!.,  Aug.  26.  1820. 

»*  Mo.  IntelL,  Aug.  19,  1820. 

«  Mo.  Intel!.,  Sept.  2,  1820. 

»•  Mo.  Gaz.,  Aug.  23,  1820. 


266  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

assembly  of  Missouri,  a  body  with  a  total  membership  of  fifty- 
seven.  Besides  the  general  reasons  already  advanced  for  this 
feeling  of  opposition,  especially  those  regarding  the  high  salaries 
and  the  caucus,  were  these:  that  rotation  of  office  holding  should 
be  favored;  that  the  Journal  had  not  been  printed;  and  that 
many  delegates  had  absented  themselves  on  important  votes.^^ 
One  writer  with  asperity  urged  the  voters  not  to  send  to  the 
first  State  legislature  of  Missouri  as  they  had  to  the  last  terri- 
torial general  assembly  "a  set  of  ignoramuses,  hardly  capable 
of  reading,  much  less  comprehending  the  English  language, 
and  woefully  deficient  in  every  qualification  necessary  to  con- 
stitute a  legislator."  ^^ 

The  campaign  closed  on  Saturday,  August  26,  and  the 
first  State  election,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the 
schedule  of  the  constitution,  was  held  on  the  following  Monday. 
''The  day  was  unusually  fine,"  wrote  the  editor  of  the  Missouri 
Intelligencer,  "and  the  polls  well  attended,"  there  being  over 
two  thousand  votes  cast  in  Howard  county  alone.  He  added 
that  despite  the  many  candidates  and  the  conflicting  interests 
at  stake  "the  election  was  conducted  with  the  greatest  order 
and  decorum,  and  reflects  the  highest  credit  on  the  citizens."  ^^ 
None  of  the  newspapers  of  the  State  contained  accounts  to  the 
contrary  regarding  the  orderliness  of  the  election.  The  voting 
was  by  ballot. "^^  Interest  centered  in  the  governorship,  there 
being  nine  thousand  one  hundred  and  thirty-two  votes  cast 
for  governor,  eight  thousand  and  fifty  for  lieutenant  governor, 
and  only  five  thousand  three  hundred  and  eighty  for  repre- 
sentative. So  far  as  the  returns  are  available  today,  McNair 
run  ahead  of  Clark  in  most  if  not  all  parts  of  the  State  by  large 
majorities.  Even  in  St.  Louis  county,  the  headquarters  of 
the  ring,  McNair  polled  twice  the  votes  that  Clark  did,  re- 
ceiving eight  hundred  and  fifty-nine  to  his  opponent's  four 
hundred  and  thirty-one.^^     In  St.   Charles  county  Clark  was 


»»  Mo.  IntelL,  Aug.  12,  1820,  article  by  "An  Elector." 

«»  Mo.  IntelL,  Aug.  26,  1820,  article  by  "Howard." 

*o  Mo.   IntelL,   Sept.   2,   1820. 

"  St.  Charles  Missourian,  July  22,  1820. 

"  Mo.  IntelL,  Sept.  9.   1820. 


A  De  Facto  State.  267 

beaten  nearly  three  to  one;  in  Cooper  county,  four  to  one;  in 
Howard  and  Jefferson  counties,  nearly  two  to  one;  and  in  Pike 
county,  McNair  and  Cook  received  a  majority .«  The  official 
abstract  of  the  returns  as  examined  by  the  general  assembly 
showed  that  McNair  had  been  elected  by  a  majority  of  four 
thousand  and  twenty  votes,  receiving  six  thousand  five  hundred 
and  seventy-six,  and  Clark,  two  thousand  five  hundred  and 
fifty-six/^  Over  half  the  State  vote  was  cast  in  the  counties 
of  Howard,  Cooper,  St.  Charles,  and  St.  Louis.  In  these  four 
counties  McNair  and  Clark  each  received  more  than  half  of 

their  total  support. 

The  election  returns  on  the  lieutenant  governor  were  close. 
The  withdrawal  of  Ramsay  from  the  race  and  the  unpopularity 
or  inconspicuousness  of  Elliott,  left  the  contest  between  Ashley 
and  Cook.     The  few  county  returns  available  show  that  it  was 
no  man's  victory  until  all   the  districts  had  been  heard  from. 
In  Howard  county  Ashley  ran  ahead  of  Cook  by  two  hundred 
and  seventy-six  votes,  receiving  one  thousand  and  thirty-eight 
to  his  opponent's  seven  hundred  and   sixty-two;    in    the  ad- 
joining frontier  county  of  Cooper,  Ashley  received  only  two 
hundred   and   ninety-five  votes  against  the   five  hundred  and 
seventy-three  votes  cast  for  Cook;  in  St.  Charles  county  Ashley 
polled  three  hundred  and  fifty-five  votes,  Cook  two  hundred  and 
thirty-nine;  while  in  St.  Louis  county,  the  residence  of  Ashley, 
he  received  only  three  hundred   and   thirty-eight  while   Cook 
received  eight  hundred  and  eight.^^     The  abstract  of  the  re- 
turns examined   by   the   general   assembly  gave  Ashley   three 
thousand  nine  hundred  and  seven  votes,  Cook  three  thousand 
two  hundred  and  twelve,  and  Elliott  nine  hundred  and  thirty- 
one.^^     In   the   four   counties   of   Cooper,  Howard,  St.  Charles 
and  St.  Louis,  Ashley  received  fifty-one  per  cent,  of  his  support 
and  Cook  seventy-four  per  cent.     This    seems    to   show  that 

"iMd"  Sept'  30,  1820.  The  St.  Louis  Enquirer,  Sept.  19.  1820,  stated  that 
McNair  received  a  majority  of  three  thousand  nine  hundred  and  twenty-three 
votes  over  Clark.  The  journal  of  the  House  as  copied  in  the  St.  Louis  Enquirer. 
Sept.  23,  1820,  gave  Clark  two  thousand  six  hundred  and  fifty-two  votes. 

*^Mo.  Intell.,  Sept.  9,   1820. 

<^Ihid.,  Sept.  16,  1820;  St.  Louis  Enquirer,  Sept.  19,  1820. 


268  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

Cook,  the  southeast  Missouri  candidate,  was  better  supported 
in  St.  Louis  and  the  northern  counties  than  Ashley .^^ 

The  members  elected  to  the  house  of  Representatives  of 
the  general  assembly  were:  from  Howard  county,  Andrew  S. 
McGirk,  Elias  Elston,  Daniel  Monroe,  Tyre  Harris,  James 
Alcorn,  John  Ray,  Martin  Palmer,  Samuel  Williams;  from  Cooper 
county,  William  Lillard,  Thomas  Rogers,  William  McFarland, 
Thomas  Smiley;  from  Montgomery  county,  Jesse  B.  Boone, 
Bethel  Allen;  from  Pike  county,  James  Johnson,  Daniel  Ralls; 
from  St.  Charles  county,  Joseph  Evans,  Uriah  J.  Devore,  Wil- 
liam Smith;  from  St.  Louis  county,  Joshua  Barton,  David 
Musick,  Henry  Walton,  John  S.  Ball,  Alexander  Stewart,  Marie 

P.  Leduc;  from  Franklin  county,  Philip  Boulware, ;  from 

Lincoln  county,  Morgan  Wright;  from  Jefferson  county,  William 
Bates;  from  Washington  county,  George  Hudspeth,  Robert  M. 
Stevenson;  from  Ste.  Genevieve  county,  James  Caldwell,  Joab 
Waters,  Daniel  [or  David]  Murphy,  James  H.  Relfe;  from  Cape 
Girardeau  county,  Joseph  McFerron,  Edmund  Rutter,  Thomas 
W.  Graves,  Robert  English;  from  New  Madrid  county,  John 
Hall,  Richard  H.  Waters;  from  Madison  county,  Samuel  D. 
Strother,  and  from  Wayne  county,  Ezekiel  Rubottom.^^  Of 
these  forty-three  representatives  elected  to  the  first  general 
assembly  of  the  State  of  Missouri,  one,  the  unknown  repre- 
sentative from  Franklin  county,  died  before  taking  his  seat  in 
that  body;  two,  Ray  and  Ralls,  died  while  the  legislature  was 
in  session  in  1820;  one,  Boone,  died  just  after  the  close  of  the 
session;  and  two.  Barton  and  McFerron,  resigned  before  the 
end  of  the  first  session."*^  John  G.  Heath,  a  former  delegate 
to  the  convention,  was  elected  to  fill  the  term  of  the  unknown 
Franklin  county  representative;  Duff  Green,  another  delegate, 
was  elected  to  take  Ray's  seat;  no  one  seems  to  have  been  elected 


<'  Pike  county  also  went  for  Cook.     Mo.  Intell.,  Sept.   16.   1820. 

<8  Mo.  Intell,  Sept.  30,  Oct.  14,  1820. 

*"  Regarding  the  unknown  Franklin  county  representative  see  Mo.  Senate 
Journal,  1820,  p.  60.  Ray  died  in  St.  Louis  on  Oct.  13,  1820.  {Ibid.,  p.  51.) 
Ralls  died  in  St.  Louis  on  or  about  Oct.  30  or  31,  1820.  His  funeral  was  held 
on  Oct.  31.  {Ibid.,  pp.  82f.)  Boone  died  in  St.  Louis  on  Doc.  22,  1820.  {Mo. 
Intell,  Jan.  1,  1821.)  Barton  resigned  on  Sept,  21,  1820.  {Mo.  Intell,  Oct. 
14,  1820;  St.  Louis  Enquirer,  Sept.  30,  1820.)  McFerron  resigned  in  Nov.  1820. 
{Mo.  Intell,  Dec.  9,  1820.) 


A  De  Facto  State.  269 

at  this  session  to  fill  the  place  of  Ralls;  Henry  S.  Geyer  was 
elected  to  Barton's  seat;  and  William  (?)  Dougherty  was  prob- 
ably the  man  elected  to  take  McFerron's  place. ^^  The  resig- 
nation of  Barton  was  caused  by  his  seeking  the  office  of  secretary 
of  state;  that  of  McFerron,  by  his  being  appointed  to  a  circuit 
clerkship. 

The  fourteen  members  of  the  senate  elected  at  this  election 
were:  from  Howard  and  Cooper  counties,  Benjamin  Cooper, 
Bennett  Clark,  Richard  W.  Cummins,  Elias  Barcroft;  from 
Montgomery  and  Franklin,  James  Talbott;  from  St.  Charles, 
Benjamin  Emmons;  from  St.  Louis,  Silas  Bent,  Mathias  Mc- 
Girk; from  Jefferson  and  Washington,  Samuel  Perry;  from  Ste. 
Genevieve,  Isidore  Moore;  from  Madison  and  Wayne,  David 
Logan;  from  Cape  Girardeau  and  New  Madrid,  George  F. 
Bollinger,  Abraham  Byrd;  and  from  Lincoln  and  Pike,  Samuel 
K.  Caldwell.^^  McGirk  later  resigned  to  accept  a  Supreme 
Court  judgeship.^2  Of  these  fourteen  senators  three,  or  twenty- 
one  per  cent.,  had  been  delegates  to  the  convention;  of  the 
forty-three  representatives  only  five,  including  Heath,  or  eleven 
per  cent.,  had  been  delegates. 

The  ablest  members  of  the  lower  house  were  Joshua  Barton 
and  his  successor,  Henry  S.  Geyer;  those  in  the  senate  were 
Benjamin  Emmons,  Silas  Bent,  Mathias  McGirk  and  Samuel 
Perry.  The  character  of  the  membership  of  both  chambers 
did  not  begin  to  equal  that  of  the  convention.  Many  were 
men  of  little  or  no  political  experience  and  never  rose  to  prom- 
inence. The  leaders  and  the  best  minds  of  Missouri  were  in 
the  convention,  and  the  first  general  assembly  was  not  a  pro- 
convention  body.  The  people  had,  with  few  exceptions,  passed 
by  their  politicians  and  sent  untrained  men  to  legislate  for 
them.  The  leaders  waited  and  as  popular  indignation  over 
high  salaries  and  other  measures  subsided,  they  gradually  came 
back.  Thus  while  only  seven  delegates  were  in  the  beginning 
elected  to  the  first  general  assembly,  two  more.  Heath  and 
Green,  were  added  to  the  number  by  the  close  of  the  last  session; 


'"Mo.  Senate  Journal,  p.  60;  Mo.  IntelL,  Nov.  4,  Dec.  9.  1820. 
«>  Mo.  IntelL,  Sept.  30,  1820. 
^^Mo.  Senate  Journal,  1820,  p.  141. 


270  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

and  in  the  second  general  assembly,  eleven  delegates  were 
seated. ^^ 

The  first  general  assembly  of  the  State  of  Missouri,  in 
accordance  with  the  constitution,  convened  in  St.  Louis  on  the 
third  Monday  in  September,  the  18th,  1820.  The  place  of 
meeting  for  this  session  was  the  Missouri  Hotel, — a  fine,  three- 
story,  stone  building,  erected  by  Thomas  Brady  in  1819  and 
opened  by  David  Massey  in  1820.  Walter  B.  Stevens,  the  St. 
Louis  historian,  thus  describes  this  structure :  "One  of  the  most 
notable  landmarks  of  the  town  of  St.  Louis  disappeared  in  1873, 
when  the  old  Missouri  hotel  was  razed,  to  give  place  to  a  business 
structure.  In  its  day  this  was  the  finest  hotel  in  the  West. 
It  was  commenced  in  1817  and  was  completed  two  years  later. 
When  the  property  passed  into  the  hands  of  Major  Biddle  an 
addition  was  built  to  increase  the  accommodations.  The 
Major  went  east  and  procured  a  professional  hotel-keeper,  who 
opened  the  house  with  an  equipment  and  appointments  which 
made  it  the  hotel  of  the  Missouri  Valley."  ^^ 

The  two  chambers  met  separately  and  the  members  present 
having  produced  their  credentials,  were  sworn  and  proceeded 
to  organize.  The  house  elected  James  Caldwell,  speaker; 
John  McArthur,  clerk;  and  George  W.  Ferguson,  door-keeper.^^ 
All  these  offices  were  contested.  The  election  of  Caldwell,  of 
Ste.  Genevieve,  over  Stewart,  of  St.  Louis,  showed  the  strength 
of  the  southeast  Missouri  forces.  Later  in  the  session  John 
Rice  Jones  was  appointed  clerk  pro  tempore  of  the  house  in  the 
absence  of  McArthur,  and  on  November  8th,  Jones  was  elected 
chief  clerk  of  the  house.^^  The  senate  unanimously  elected 
Silas  Bent  president  pro  tempore;  John  S.  Brickey,  clerk  pro 
tempore]  and  Jabez  Warner,  doorkeeper.  Brickey  after  two 
viva  voce  votes  was  then  elected  clerk^"^  and  later  in  the  session 
Thompson  Douglass  was  elected  assistant  clerk.^^     The  election 


"  Off.  Manual  of  Mo.,  1914-15,  p.  150. 

"Stevens,  St.  Louis,  p.  119;  Billon,  Annals,  1804-1821.  p.  106,  a  picture  of 
the  hotel  is  opposite  p.  106.  The  hotel  was  located  on  the  southwest  corner  of 
Main  and  Oak  Streets,  now  North  Main  and  North  H.  Streets. 

*<>  St.  Louis  Enquirer,  Sept.  23,  1820;  Mo.  Intell.,  Sept.  30,  1820. 

^^  Senate  Journal,  1820,  pp.  43f.,  81,  101. 

»'  Ibid. 

**  Senate  Journal,   1820,   p.   41. 


A  De  Facto  State.  271 

of  Bent,  of  St.  Louis,  showed  the  strength  of  the  St.  Louis  and 
northern  county  senators  and  this  strength  was  never  seriously 
threatened  during  the  session.  At  4  P.  M.  the  senate  and  house 
assembled  in  the  chamber  of  the  latter  and  agreeable  to  the 
constitution  made  an  official  count  of  the  votes  for  governor 
and  lieutenant  governor.  A  committee  of  three  from  each 
house  was  appointed  to  inform  McNair  and  Ashley  of  their 
election  and  to  request  their  presence  before  the  general  as- 
sembly to  be  qualified.  At  11  A.  M.,  on  September  19,  Governor 
McNair  and  Lieutenant  Governor  Ashley  appeared  before  the 
joint  session  of  the  general  assembly  and  in  their  presence  took 
the  oaths  of  office.  At  4  o'clock  of  the  same  day,  Governor 
McNair  delivered  in  person  his  first  message.^^  This  first  mes- 
sage of  the  first  governor  of  the  State  of  Missouri  was,  unlike  the 
majority  of  its  successors,  brief.  It  contained  only  one  specific 
recommendation  regarding  legislation — the  advisability  of  mak- 
ing provision  for  the  appointing  of  presidential  electors  from 
Missouri.  Nine  days  after  this  first  message  Governor  McNair 
issued  a  proclamation  declaring  the  election  of  John  Scott  as 
representative  to  Congress  from  Missouri.^° 

The  first  days  of  the  session  were  spent  in  preliminary 
work.  Committees,  standing  and  special,  were  appointed,  of 
which  the  most  important  were  on  claims,  grievances,  constitu- 
tional provisions,  permanent  and  temporary  seats  of  govern- 
ment, militia,  vice  and  immorality,  census,  slaves,  roads  and 
bridges,  and  the  great  seal  of  the  State.^^  In  spirit  with  the 
governor's  message,  a  resolution  was  offered  on  the  third  day 
in  the  house  that  stated  it  was  inexpedient  at  that  session  to 
legislate  further  than  was  necessary  for  organizing  the  govern- 
ment and  appointing  officers.  This  resolution  was  tabled  .^■- 
From  almost  the  beginning  of  the  session  several  important 
questions  were  under  discussion  that  involved  spirited  contests. 
The  principal  ones  were  the  election  of  the  two  United  States 
senators  from  Missouri,  the  location  of  the  temporar\^  seat  of 

»« Ibid. 

^'^  Mo.  Gaz.,  Oct.  11,  1820.  Scott  received  five  thousand  three  hundred  and 
eighty  votes.     The  proclamation  was  dated  Sept.   28,    1820. 

«' Afo.  Intell.,  Oct.  14,  1820;  St.  Louis  Enquirer,  Sept.  30,  1820. 
"  St.  Louis  Enquirer,   Sept.  30,   1820. 


272  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

government,  and  the  proposing  of  constitutional  amendments. 
The  first  was  settled  within  two  weeks,  the  second  towards  the 
end  of  the  session,  and  the  last  was  defeated. 

The  election  of  the  two  United  States  senators  from  Mis- 
souri had  been  before  the  public  from  the  meeting  of  the  con- 
vention. It  had  done  much  to  bring  about  the  St.  Louis  caucus 
and  had  been  instrumental  in  defeating  Clark.  The  August 
election  had  not  settled  the  question,  it  had  merely  drawn  the 
conflicting  forces  farther  apart,  cementing  the  elements  in  each. 
The  convening  of  the  legislature  brought  the  subject  up  for 
final  settlement.  The  house  on  the  day  following  its  organiza- 
tion had  before  it  a  resolution  providing  for  the  senatorial 
election  being  held  on  September  25th.  This  resolution  was 
received  on  September  20th  on  motion  of  Ball  of  St.  Louis. ^^ 
An  election  on  the  25th  would  probably  have  meant  Benton's 
defeat,  owing  to  the  lack  of  time  his  forces  would  have  had  in 
securing  sufficient  votes. 

The  first  law  passed  by  the  general  assembly  of  the  State 
of  Missouri  was  on  this  question  of  electing  United  States 
senators.  It  was  signed  by  the  governor  on  September  28th .^"^ 
The  law  provided  for  a  joint  session  of  both  houses  and  for  a 
simple  majority  vote  of  the  votes  cast.  By  a  joint  resolution 
passed  on  September  29th,  the  first  election  for  this  purpose 
was  set  at  3  o'clock  P.  M.,  on  Monday,  October  2nd.^^  Ac- 
cording to  the  provisions  of  this  resolution  and  the  law  governing 
senatorial  elections,  the  senate  and  house  convened  in  the 
chamber  of  the  latter.  The  votes  were  cast  viva  voce:  an  attempt 
had  been  made  in  the  Senate  to  obtain  a  vote  by  ballot  but  this 
was  lost  by  a  large  majority.^®  The  results  of  the  election  were 
as  follows:  Barton  received  thirty-four  votes;  Benton,  twei.ty- 
seven;  John  B.  C.  Lucas,  sixteen;  Henry  Elliott,  ten;  John  Rice 
Jones,  nine;  Nathaniel  Cook,  eight.  There  were  fifty-two 
members  of  the  general  assembly  voting,  and  as  twenty-seven 


"  St.  Louis  Enquirer,  Sept.  30,   1820. 
««  Laws  of  Mo.,   1820,  pp.  3f. 
"  Senate  Journal,   p.   28. 

*' Senate  Journal,  pp.  32,  34;  Mo.  IntelL,  Oct.  14.  1820;  St.  Louis  Enquirer, 
Oct.   7,    1820. 


A  De  Facto  State.  273 

votes  was  a  majority,  Barton  and  Benton  had  been  elected 
Missouri's  first  United  States  Senators. 

The  election  was  dramatic.  According  to  rumour,  which 
has  never  been  disproved  and  which  fits  admirably  into  place 
with  undisputed  and  authentic  historical  facts,  the  votes  of 
two  men, — one,  Daniel  Ralls,  who  from  his  death-bed  of  twelve 
hours  later  cast  his  vote  for  Benton,  and  the  other,  Marie  P. 
Leduc,  who,  hating  Benton,  was  persuaded  by  his  French 
friends  to  vote  for  him  instead  of  Lucas, — finally  determined 
the  elevation  of  Thomas  Hart  Benton  to  the  United  States 
Senate.^^  The  work  and  the  credit,  however,  of  securing  the 
larger  number  of  the  other  twenty-five  votes  for  Benton  be- 
longed to  one,  who  within  four  years  was  treated  as  an  enemy 
by  Benton  and  who  within  a  decade  was  defeated  for  reelection 
by  him, — David  Barton.  The  history  of  Missouri  nowhere 
reveals  so  unnatural  a  deed,  so  perfidious  an  act,  as  the  turning 
of  Benton  against  Barton.  The  faults  of  Barton  were  many 
but  his  ability  and  honesty  were  never  questioned  and  his 
nature  was  the  most  lovable.  The  public  character  and  mind 
of  Benton  were  perfect,  but  his  domineering,  brutal,  conceited 
disposition  was  apparent  in  most  of  his  work.  One  of  the 
foulest  blots  in  the  life  of  the  Great  Statesman  was  this  defeating 
the  friend  who  had  raised  him  to  the  heights  of  a  conqueror. 
Barton  wagered  even  his  popularity  in  overcoming  the  un- 
popularity of  Benton.  The  latter  could  never  have  won  victory 
in  1820  without  the  unselfish  support  of  his  friend.  The  pop- 
ular condemnation  of  Benton's  brutal  murder  of  the  talented 
son  of  Judge  Lucas  had  not  subsided  and  he  was  frequently 
referred  to  as  the  man  of  blood,  the  assassin.^^  For  Barton  to 
have  thus  jeopardized  his  position  for  Benton  and  for  Benton 
to  have  so  perfidiously  betrayed  Barton,  is  one  of  the  tragedies 
in  the  political  history  of  the  State. 

The  votes  cast  for  the  senatorial  candidates  were  sectional. 
These  votes  showed  that  St.  Louis  and  the  north  Missouri 
counties,  including  Cooper,  were  in  control  of  the  legislature. 
All  except  five  of  the  votes  for  Barton  came  from  these  quarters 

«'  Darby,  Recollections,  pp.  29ff. 

«'  Mo.  Gaz.,  spring  and  summer  of  1820. 

M  S— 18 


274  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

and  similarly  all  except  six  for  Benton.  Lucas  received  his 
support,  except  three  votes,  from  south  of  the  river,  and  was 
unable  to  obtain  a  single  vote  from  St.  Louis  county.  The 
opposition  of  independent  men  to  Lucas  was  based  on  his  strict 
construction  of  the  laws  governing  the  old  Spanish  land  claims. 
This  was  played  upon  by  the  Benton  forces  and  is  said  to  have 
induced  Leduc  to  cast  his  vote  for  Benton.  Elliott  received 
his  support  from  south  of  the  river  but  none  from  St.  Louis 
county.  Jones  received  one  vote  each  from  St.  Louis  and  St. 
Charles  counties  and  his  other  votes  from  south  of  the  river. 
Cook  received  his  support  from  the  counties  north  of  the  river 
and  from  Cooper  and  St.  Louis  counties.^^  The  concentration 
of  the  anti-Benton  men  on  one  candidate  would  easily  have 
defeated  Benton.  That  there  were  any  Benton  votes  cast  for 
the  other  candidates  is  improbable  considering  the  thorough 
campaign  waged  by  Benton  and  Barton  to  secure  support. 

Out-rivaling  the  interest  and  controversy  created  by  the 
senatorial  election,  was  the  struggle  over  the  location  of  the 
temporary  seat  of  government.  Although  not  as  important 
as  the  present  day  question  of  prohibition,  the  location  of  the 
temporary  seat  of  government  was  none  the  less  the  great  ob- 
structive measure  before  the  first  State  general  assembly.  This 
question  held  the  attention  of  the  legislators  from  September 
20th  to  November  25th,  a  period  of  sixty-six  days  out  of  an 
eighty-six  day  session.  The  ties  of  political  leadership  were 
broken  and  the  interests  of  sections  became  supreme.  Judging 
from  the  time  spent  and  the  number  of  votes  taken,  the  location 
of  the  temporary  seat  of  government  was  seemingly  regarded 
as  the  most  weighty  problem  that  confronted  the  new  State. 

The  subject  was  brought  before  the  house  in  a  resolut-on 
introduced  by  Devore,  of  St.  Charles.  This  resolution,  which 
was  tabled,  stated  that  it  was  then  expedient  to  adjourn  the 

present  session  from  St.  Louis  to .^°     The  house  then 

passed  a  bill  locating  the  temporary  seat  of  government  at 
Potosi.''^     The  senate  struck  out  Potosi  and  inserted  Cote  Sans 


**  St.  Louis  Enquirer,  Oct,  7,  1820;  Senate  Journal,  p.  28, 

■">  St.  Louis  Enquirer,  Sept.  30,  1820.     Introduced  Sept.  20,  1820. 

■>' Mo.  Gaz.,  Oct.  25,  1820;  Mo.  Inlell.,  Nov.  4,  1820. 


A  De  Facto  State.  275 

Dessein.'^'-  The  house  struck  out  Cote  Sans  Dessein  by  a  vote 
of  twenty-four  to  eleven.  A  motion  was  made  to  insert  St. 
Louis,  this  lost  by  a  vote  of  six  to  twenty-nine;  St.  Charles  was 
then  proposed  and  voted  down;  Franklin  lost  by  twelve  to 
twenty-three;  Florissant,  by  seven  to  twenty-eight;  St.  Charles 
again  lost,  by  fifteen  to  twenty;  Boonville,  by  thirteen  to  twenty- 
two.  By  a  vote  of  eighteen  to  seventeen — all  eighteen  votes 
being  from  St.  Louis,  Cooper,  and  the  north  Missouri  counties — 
the  house  decided  to  leave  untouched,  but  did  not  adopt,  the 
senate's  amendment.'^  The  question  was  not  brought  up 
again  in  the  house  for  ten  days,  which  time  was  probably  em- 
ployed by  the  representatives  in  lobbying  for  votes.  On  re- 
consideration of  the  question,  Franklin  was  proposed  and  lost; 
St.  Charles,  Boonville,  St.  Louis,  Ste.  Genevieve  and  Her- 
culaneum,  were  each  in  turn  voted  down;  finally  by  the  close  vote 
of  twenty  to  nineteen  Franklin  was  inserted,  and  the  amended 
bill  returned  to  the  senate. '^^  The  senate  refused  to  concur  in 
the  amendment  of  the  house  and  a  joint  conference  committee 
of  three  members  from  each  body  was  appointed.'^^  After 
considering  the  subject  for  a  week,  this  committee  being  unable 
to  agree  was  discharged. '^^  McGirk,  of  St.  Louis,  then  had  a 
resolution  adopted  by  the  senate  requesting  the  house  for  a 
simple  conference.  Before  the  house  had  replied,  McGirk  in- 
troduced in  the  Senate  a  resolution  locating  the  temporary 
seat  of  government  at  St.  Louis.  Emmons,  of  St.  Charles,  had 
this  last  resolution  amended  by  striking  out  St.  Louis,  the  vote 
being  seven  to  three.''  St.  Charles  was  then  voted  down  by 
four  to  six;  Franklin,  by  two  to  eight;  Potosi,  by  five  to  five. 
Moore,  of  Ste.  Genevieve,  tried  to  have  the  question  postponed 
until  March  1,  1821,  but  was  defeated  one  to  eleven.'^  St. 
Louis  w^as  then  decided  on  by  a  vote  of  six  to  six  and  the  presi- 
dent of  the  senate  voting  affirmatively.  This  vote  was  recon- 
sidered by  a  vote  of  six  to  six  and  the  president  voting  affirma- 


"  Ibid. 

"  Ibid. 

'<  Ibid. 

"  Senate  Journal,  p.  98. 

''^Senate  Journal,  pp.  117,  119. 

"  Ibid. 

'« Ibid.,    p.    122. 


276  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

tively.  St.  Louis  than  lost  by  five  to  seven;  Potosi,  by  four  to 
eight;  St.  Charles  by  six  to  six,  the  president  voting  in  the 
negative;  and  Newport,  in  FrankHn  county,  by  two  to  ten.'^^ 
The  simple  conference  requested  of  the  house  was  then  dis- 
charged by  the  senate  and  on  motion  of  McGirk,  of  St.  Louis, 
the  senate  by  a  vote  of  seven  to  five  decided  to  adhere  to  its 
original  amendment,  i.  e..  Cote  Sans  Dessein.^^  The  house 
adhered  to  its  amendment  in  favor  of  Franklin,  and  the  original 
bill  with  the  various  amendments  was  lost.  The  house  then 
appointed  a  committee  which  brought  in  a  new  bill.  It  is 
probable,  but  not  certain,  that  St.  Charles  was  decided  upon 
in  this  bill.^^  The  Senate  took  up  the  new  house  bill,  rushed 
it  through  and  adopted  it  with  an  amendment  in  one  day  by 
a  vote  of  seven  to  five.  The  house  concurred  in  the  amendment 
on  November  25th,  the  bill  received  the  governor's  signature 
on  the  same  day.^^  By  this  law  the  seat  of  government  was 
located  at  the  town  of  St.  Charles  until  October  1,  1826.  On 
motion  of  McGirk,  of  St.  Louis,  the  following  propositions  of 
the  citizens  of  St.  Charles  were  entered  on  the  journal  of  the 
senate : 

The  undersigned,  for  and  in  behalf  of  the  citizens  of  St.    Charles,   pledge 
themselves,  should  the  temporary  seat  of  government  be  established  at  that  place, 
to  furnish  free  of  expense  to  the  state,  rooms  suitable  for  the  accommodation  of 
both  branches  of  the  General  Assembly,  and  also  committee  rooms." 
8th  November,  1820. 

Benjamin  Emmons, 
William  Smith, 
Uriah  J.  Devore, 
Joseph  Evans, 
Nathaniel  Simonds, 
R.  &  J.  Heath." 

The  consideration  of  the  location  of  the  temporary  seat  of 
government  had  brought  forward  the  claims  of  nine  counties 
for  this  honor,  and  had  wasted  the  energies  of  the  general 
assembly  for  over  two-thirds  of  the  session. 

Surpassing  in  importance,  both  in  worth  and  in  public 
opinion,    the   location   of   the   temporary   seat   of   government, 

"  Ibid.,  p.   123. 

•0  Ibid.,  p.   124. 

•'  Ibid.,  pp.   126,   136. 

"Ibid.,  p.  139;  Mo.  Laws.  1820.  p.  37. 

*'  Senate  Journal,  p.  139.     Cf..  Enquirer,  Oct.  1821,  editorials. 


A  De  Facto  State.  277 

were  the  amendments  proposed  to  the  constitution.  Although 
the  legislators  settled,  or  rather  defeated,  the  latter  in  little 
time  and  although  the  struggle  over  these  amendments  could 
not  compare  with  that  waged  over  the  temporary  capital,  to 
the  people  of  the  State  the  constitutional  amendments  were 
the  greatest  pieces  of  legislation  before  the  general  assembly. 
Even  before  the  constitution  had  been  adopted,  several  serious 
criticisms  were  current  regarding  some  of  its  provisions.  During 
the  campaign  in  July  and  August,  1820,  these  criticisms  became 
stronger.  To  the  people  the  constitution  had  several  defects 
and  it  was  the  wish  of  the  voters  that  the  first  general  assembly 
begin  the  correcting  of  these  defects.  The  high  minimum 
salaries  provided  for  the  governor  and  the  judges,  the  creation 
of  the  new  ofhce  of  chancellor,  and  to  some  degree  the  life  term 
of  judges  and  their  appointive  tenure  by  the  governor  and  sen- 
ate, were  unpopular.  The  high  salary  clauses  and  the  chan- 
cellor clause  were  especially  subjected  to  popular  condemna- 
tion. If  there  was  any  single  purpose  that  guided  the  voters 
on  August  28th,  it  was  to  elect  legislators  and  a  governor  that 
would  strike  these  sections  off  the  constitution.  The  people, 
however,  were  to  temporarily  experience  the  defeat  of  their 
wishes  in  this  first  session  of  their  lawmakers.  Only  one  thing 
was  and  is  today  certain  in  this  respect,  that  eventually  the 
wishes  of  the  people  prevail.  The  special  session  of  the  first 
State  general  assembly  did  in  1821  what  the  first  session  failed 
to  do  in  1820,  and  the  second  State  general  assembly  endorsed 
the  work  of  the  special  session. 

Petitions  from  the  inhabitants  of  Madison  and  Cape  Girar- 
deau counties  on  amendments  to  the  constitution  were  pre- 
sented to  the  house  in  October. ^'^  Similar  ones  were  circulated 
in  nearly  one-half  of  the  counties,  and  these  were  presented 
to  the  legislature,  but  the  lack  of  a  complete  journal  of  both 
houses  and  the  gaps  in  the  newspapers,  prevent  the  securing 
of  accurate  information  as  to  the  names  of  these  counties. ^^ 
Governor  McNair  sent  a  special  message  to  both  branches 
of  the  legislature  recommending  an  alteration  in  the  constitu- 


8^  Mo.  Intell.,  Nov.  4.  1820. 

"  (Jackson)  Independent  Patriot,  Dec.  30,  1820. 


278  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

tion  in  regard  to  lowering  the  salaries  of  the  judges.^^^.  The 
consideration  of  the  subject  and  of  other  proposed  amendments 
was  not  seriously  begun,  however,  until  the  latter  part  of  No- 
vember. The  following  amendments  were  then  brought  up 
for  a  vote  in  the  house: 

Proposed  amendments  to  the   Constitution. 

Be  it  proposed  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  iSIissouri,  That 
amendments  be  made  to  the  Constitution  of  this  state,  in  the  following  articles 
and  sections,  thereof  as  follows: 

Article  3d 

Sec.  34. — The  General  Assembly  may  establish  new  counties  and  fix  county 
line  in  such  manner  as  they  may  deem  expedient.  Provided.,  That  no  county 
now  established  or  hereafter  to  be  established,  shall  thereby  be  reduced  to  a  less 
superficial  extent  than  four  hundred  square  miles. 

Article  4th 

Sec.  13. — The  salary  of  the  Governor  may  be  either  less  or  more  than  two 
thousand  dollars  annually  to  be  fixed  by  law  from  time  to  time. 

Sec.  23. — The  General  Assembly  shall  not  provide  that  sheriffs,  and  coroners 
be  otherwise  appointed  than  by  election  of  the  qualified  electors. 

Article  5th 

Sec.  1. — The  oflace  of  Chancellor  shall  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  abolished. 

Sec.  5. — The  General  Assembly  shall  not  direct  that  the  supreme  court  be 
held  at  one  place  only. 

Sec.  9,  10,  &  11. — The  court  of  chancery  and  the  circuit  courts  shall  always 
have  original  jurisdiction  in  all  matters  of  equity  and  a  general  control  over 
executors,  administrators,  guardians  and  minors,  subject  to  appeal  in  all  cases 
to  the  supreme  court,  under  such  limitations  as  the  general  assembly  may  by 
law  provide. 

Sec.  13. — The  compensation  to  each  of  the  Judges  of  the  supreme  and  circuit 
courts  and  chancellor  may  be  less  than  two  thousand  dollars  annually  to  be  fixed 
by  law  from  time  to  time,  and  the  Judges  of  the  supreme  court.  Judges  of  the  cir- 
cuit courts  and  chancellor  shall  hold  their  respective  offices  during  six  years  from 
and  after  their  respective  appointments,  and  until  their  successors  shall  be  duly 
appointed  and  qualified,  who  shall  be  chosen  by  joint  vote  of  both  houses  of  the 
General  Assembly. 

Sec.  16. — Any  judge  of  the  supreme  or  circuit  courts  and  chancellor  shall 
be  removed  from  office,  on  the  address  of  two-thirds  of  each  House  of  the  General 
Assembly  to  the  Governor  for  that  purpose. 

as  a  new  article 

That  no  person  holding  any  office  under  the  United  States  shall  be  eligible 
or  appointed  to  any  office  under  the  authority  of  this  state." 

Geyer,  of  St.  Louis,  moved  to  postpone  the  further  consider- 
ation of  these  amendments  until  the  next  session,  but  his  motion 


«'»  St.  Louis  Enquirer,  Oct.    14,   1820.     The  date  and  complete  content  of 
this  mes.sage  is  not  known. 

••  (Jack.son)  Independent  Patriot,   Dec.  30.   1820. 


A  De  Facto  Stale.  279 

failed  to  carry.     McGirk,  of  Howard,  then  submitted  the  fol- 
lowing resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  we  deem  it  inexpedient  at  this  sesssion  of  the  present  General 
Assembly  to  propose  any  amendments  to  the  constitution. 

1st — Because  one-half  of  the  people  of  this  state  have  not  petitioned  that 
amendments  should  be  proposed  without  which  we  cannot  know  their  will, 

2nd — Because  we  have  not  been  admitted  into  the  Federal  union,  until 
which   time   we   deem   a   change   inexpedient — and 

3rd — Because  we  deem  it  inexpedient  to  change  our  constitution  until  time 
and  experience  will  shew  [sic]  that  our  constitution  is  defective  and  ought  to  be 
changed."  8? 

This  resolution  was  lost  by  a  vote  of  eight  to  twenty-six. 
Of  the  eight  votes  cast  affirmatively,  three  were  from  St.  Louis; 
two,  from  Franklin;  one  each,  from  New  Madrid,  Cooper  and 
Howard.  Despite  the  provision  in  the  amending  clause  of  the 
constitution  requiring  an  affirmative  vote  of  two-thirds  of  all 
the  members  elected  to  each  house  to  propose  and  to  adopt 
amendments,  Rutter,  of  Cape  Girardeau,  submitted  a  resolu- 
tion that  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  members  present  was  sufficient. 
This  was  lost  by  a  vote  of  eleven  to  twenty-three.  Of  the 
eleven  votes  favoring  this  obviously  illegal  resolution,  three 
were  from  Cape  Girardeau,  two  each,  from  Washington  and 
Ste.  Genevieve,  one  each,  from  St.  Charles,  Pike,  Cooper  and 
Madison.  After  this  preliminary  skirmish  the  house  took  up 
the  consideration  of  the  several  amendments  proposed.  The 
vote  on  the  first  amendment  submitted  was  seventeen  to  seven- 
teen and  was  widely  distributed  both  among  counties  and 
among  representatives  from  a  county,  excepting,  however,  the 
counties  of  Ste.  Genevieve,  which  gave  the  amendment  its 
entire  support,  and  St.  Louis  and  New  Madrid,  which  opposed 
the  amendment  with  all  their  votes.  The  vote  on  the  salary 
of  the  governor  was  twenty-seven  to  seven.  The  seven  votes 
cast  against  this  popular  measure  were  distributed  as  follows: 
three  from  St.  Louis,  two  from  Franklin,  and  one  each,  from 
New  Madrid  and  Howard.  The  vote  on  the  amendment 
prohibiting  the  legislature  from  changing  the  tenure  of  the 
sheriff  and  coroner  was  eighteen  to  sixteen.  Of  the  sixteen 
votes  against  this  measure,  twelve  of  the  fifteen  counties  were 
represented — St.  Charles  cast  three;  St.  Louis  and  Cooper 
each,    two;   others   scattering.     The   vote   on    the   amendment 

87  Ibid.     All  proceedings  of  the  house  are  from  same  source. 


280  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

abolishing  the  office  of  chancellor  was  twenty-five  to  ten:  the 
ten  negative  votes  were  distributed  as  follows — St.  Louis, 
four;  New  Madrid  and  Howard,  each  two;  Franklin  and  Ste. 
Genevieve,  each  one.  The  vote  on  the  proposed  amendment 
to  section  five  of  article  five  was  twenty- two  to  thirteen,  and 
on  the  amendment  to  sections  nine,  ten  and  eleven,  of  article 
five,  was  twenty-five  to  eleven.  The  amendment  to  section 
thirteen,  of  article  five,  was  divided  into  two  parts.  The  vote 
on  the  salary  of  the  judges  was  twenty-seven  to  nine.  The 
nine  negative  votes  were  distributed  as  follows:  four  from  St. 
Louis;  two  each,  from  New  Madrid  and  Howard;  one  from 
Franklin.  The  vote  on  the  six  years  term  for  judges  and  for 
the  appointive  tenure  by  a  joint  vote  of  both  houses,  was  twenty- 
seven  to  nine.  The  nine  negative  votes  cast  on  this  measure 
were  distributed  as  follows:  St.  Louis  four;  New  Madrid  two; 
Franklin,  Howard  and  Ste.  Genevieve,  each  one.  The  back- 
bone of  all  this  opposition  was:  Ball,  Geyer,  Leduc  and  Walton 
of  St.  Louis;  Hall  and  Waters  of  New  Madrid;  Heath  of  Frank- 
lin; Relfe  of  Ste.  Genevieve;  Williams  and  McGirk  of  Howard. 
The  vote  on  the  amendment  proposed  to  section  sixteen  of 
article  five  was  eighteen  to  sixteen.  The  negative  votes  were 
distributed  as  follows:  four  from  St.  Louis;  three  each  from 
Howard  and  Cooper;  and  two  from  St.  Charles;  one  each  from 
Jefferson,  New  Madrid,  Franklin,  and  Ste.  Genevieve.  The 
vote  on  the  new  article  was  twenty-four  to  eleven.  The  eleven 
negative  votes  were  distributed  as  follows:  four  from  St.  Louis; 
two  each,  from  St.  Charles  and  New  Madrid;  one  each  from 
Franklin,  Cooper  and  Howard.  Since  the  constitutional  ma- 
jority of  two-thirds  of  the  members  elected  would  have  neces- 
sitated twenty-nine  votes,  and  since  no  measure  received  mere 
than  twenty-seven  votes,  all  of  the  amendments  submitted 
were  lost. 

While  the  house  was  attempting  to  pass  its  proposed 
amendments,  the  senate  was  considering  three  that  had  origi- 
nated there.     These  three  senate  amendments  were  as  follows: 

Article  4th. 
Sect.  13.     The  governor  shall  receive  an  annual  compensation  for  his  services, 
to  be  fixed  by  law,  which  shall  not  be  diminished  during  his  continuance  in  oflBce. 


A  De  Facto  State.  281 

Article  5th. 

Sect.  1.  That  the  office  of  Chancellor  shall  be  abolished,  and  the  chancery 
powers  shall  be  vested  in  the  supreme  and  circuit  courts,  in  such  manner  as  the 
general  assembly  shall  by  law  provide. 

Article  5th. 

Sect.  13.  That  the  judges  of  the  supreme  and  circuit  courts,  and  chancellor, 
if  not  abolished,  shall  hold  their  offices  during  six  years  from  and  after  their 
respective  appointments,  unless  sooner  removed;  who  shall  be  chosen  by  a  joint 
vote  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  state;  and  the  compen- 
sation of  the  said  judges  and  chancellor,  if  his  office  be  not  abolished,  may  be  less 
than  two  thousand  dollars,  annually,  to  be  fixed  by  law  from  time  to  time.»» 

These  amendments  passed  the  senate  on  November  28th,  by 
large  majorities,  the  largest  number  of  negative  votes  being 
two.^^  These  measures,  unlike  those  considered,  in  the  house, 
were  all  important  ones  and  were  popular  with  the  people.  On 
being  brought  to  a  vote  in  the  house,  they  all  failed  to  pass, 
and  an  attempt  was  even  made  and  received  eight  votes,  to 
postpone  the  further  consideration  of  amendments. ^^  The 
opposition  of  less  than  a  dozen  representatives,  in  some  instances 
of  only  eight  representatives,  had  thwarted  not  only  the  wishes 
of  the  legislature  but  those  of  the  people  of  the  State.  The 
leaders  of  this  small  but  well  knit  opposition  were  McGirk  of 
Howard  county  and  Geyer  of  St.  Louis  county.  Their 
ability  as  politicians  aided  by  the  provisions  in  the  amending 
clause  of  the  constitution  enabled  them  to  successfully  stand  in 
the  way  of  what  the  voters  and  their  representatives  desired. 
From  the  standpoint  of  the  worth  of  the  amendments,  there 
was  as  much  to  censure  as  to  favor  in  them:  from  the  viewpoint 
of  the  people,  however,  the  amendments  were  desirable. 

The  action  of  the  house  in  refusing  to  decrease  the  salaries 
of  the  governor  and  judges  was  in  accord  with  their  previous 
act  of  allowing  a  fair  if  not  a  high  compensation,  considering 
the  times,  to  members  and  officers  of  the  general  assembly. 
The  latter  bill  was  the  first  to  receive  the  veto  of  a  governor 
of  this  State  and  was  also  the  first  to  become  a  law  over  that 
veto.  This  compensation  bill  originated  in  the  house  and  having 
passed  both  chambers,  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  governor. 
The  governor  courageously  withheld  his  signature  and  returned 


88  (Jackson)  Independent  Patriot,  Dec.  23,  1820. 

«»  Senate  Journal,  pp.   142f. 

•1  (Jackson)  Independent  Patriot,  Dec.  23,  1820. 


282  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

the  bill  to  the  place  of  its  inception  accompanied  by  the  follow- 
ing enlightened  and  public  spirited  message: 

A  communication  from  the  Governor  "To  the  Senate  and  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives. 

"I  have  had  under  consideration  the  bill  passed  by  the  two  Houses  of  the 
General  Assembly  entitled,  "an  act  regulating  the  compensation  of  the  members 
of  the  General  Assembly:"  and  after  bestowing  on  its  provisions  that  deliberation 
and  reflection  due  to  its  importance,  I  feel  bound  to  withhold  my  approbation. 

"1.  In  pursuance  of  that  system  of  economy  which  the  financial  condition 
of  the  state  requires,  I  have  already  deemed  it  expedient  to  recommend  a  reduction 
in  other  branches  of  public  expenditure.  The  allowance  of  the  contemplated 
pay  to  the  members  of  the  General  Assembly,  would  seem  to  me  inconsistent 
with,  and  a  clear  departure  from  that  system. 

"2.  If  the  bill  were  to  operate  on  the  present  session  only,  though  I  might 
still  think  it  objectionable,  I  might  not  think  it  imperatively  my  duty  to  interpose 
the  executive  veto;  but  as  the  commencement  of  a  system  which  might  be  drawn 
into  dangerous  precedents,  I  cannot  suppress  my  objections,  particularly  when 
I  reflect,  that  all  experience  shows  it  is  much  easier  to  increase  than  diminish 
an  allowance,  when  once  established  in  the  beginning. 

"For  these  reasons  I  have  felt  it  my  duty  to  withhold  my  approbation  of  the 
before  mentioned  bill,  which  together  with  my  objections,  is  herewith  retiu'ned 
to  the  House  of  Representatives. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  ob't.  serv.t. 

St.   Louis,    17th   Oct.    1820.  A,   M'Nair."  »» 

The  house  by  the  large  majority  vote  of  twenty-eight  to 
seven  passed  the  bill  over  the  governor's  veto  and  on  the  follow- 
ing day,  October  19th,  the  senate,  by  a  vote  of  nine  to  three,  gave 
it  the  force  of  a  law, — it  being  signed  by  the  presiding  officer 
of  each  chamber. ^^  This  law  regulated  the  per  diem  compensa- 
tion of  members  of  the  general  assembly  for  attendance  at  four 
dollars;  of  the  presiding  officers  and  the  chief  clerk  of  each  house 
at  five  dollars;  of  the  two  assistant  clerks  at  four  dollars;  and 
of  the  two  doorkeepers  at  three  dollars.  The  clerical  force  of 
the  legislature  was,  as  is  seen  from  this  law,  ridiculously  small 
in  comparison  with  that  employed  in  later  days:  and  the  omis- 
sion of  a  regular  staff  and  company  of  salaried  pages  and  janitors 
is  beyond  the  appreciation  of  one  familiar  with  the  payroll  of  a 
twentieth  century  state  legislature.  The  members  and  the 
presiding  officers  of  both  houses  were  further  allowed  mileage 
at  the  rate  of  three  dollars  for  every  twenty-five  miles  "they 
must  necessarily  travel,  going  to  and  from  the  said  assemblies."  ^' 
Such  were  the  extravagant  salaries  carried  in  this  law  that  pro- 

*' Senate  Journal,  pp.  58f;  Mo.  Gaz.,  Oct.  25,  1820;  Mo.  Intell.,  Nov.  11. 
1820. 

"Senate  Journal,  pp.,  58ff;  Mo.  Intell.,  Nov.  18,  1820. 
"  Mo.  Laws,  1820,  pp.  34f. 


A  De  Facto  State.  283 

voked  the  first  State  governor  of  Missouri  to  say:  "I  have 
felt  it  my  duty  to  withhold  my  approbation  of  the  before  men- 
tioned bill."  Considered  in  the  light  of  modern  times,  this 
law  and  its  brief  history  cause  us  to  waver  between  two  con- 
victions— praise  of  the  courage  of  Governor  McNair  and  praise 
of  the  modesty  of  the  first  State  general  assembly  of  Missouri.^"* 

Nothing  reveals  so  clearly  the  limited  character  of  govern- 
mental activities  in  the  new  State  and  the  economy  adopted 
in  conducting  these  activities,  as  a  survey  of  the  State's  finances 
in  1820,  including  budget  making,  taxes  and  appropriations. 
The  first  State  general  assembly  of  Missouri  with  businesslike 
forethought  resolved  to  estimate  the  probable  income  and  ex- 
penses of  the  State  before  levying  taxes  or  passing  appropriation 
bills.  This  body  being  practically  unlimited  in  its  financial 
powers,  decided  to  equalize  the  revenues  and  expenditures  by 
providing  new  taxes  or  raising  old  ones  and  by  economizing 
in  appropriation  items.  The  senate  finance  committee  reported 
a  budget  for  the  year  1820-1821  which  was  the  basis  of  the 
financial  legislation  of  the  session. ^^  The  probable  annual 
expenditures  were  estimated  by  this  committee  as  follows: 

General  Assembly — pay  of  members,  rent,  contingent  expenses,  sta- 
tionery, printing  laws  and  journals,  etc.,  for  a  sixty  day  session.  .        $20,000 

Salary  of  Governor S2 ,  000 

Salary  of  three  Supreme  Court  Jiidges 6,000 

Salary  of  Chancellor 2 ,  000 

Salary  of  four  Circuit  Judges 8,000  18,000 

Salary  of  Sec.  of  State,  Attorney  General,  Auditor  and  Treas- 
urer    3 . 000 

Contingent  Expenses 4 ,  000 

Total $45 .  000 

The  probable  annual  revenue  was  estimated  as  follows: 

"The  amount  of  revenue  produced  by  the  territorial  mode  of  taxation 

for  the  year  ending  on  the  first  Monday  of  December,  1819,  was.  .        $24,424 

"The  confirmed  lands  within  the  limits  of  the  state,  are  1,087,143 
acres,  which  being  taxed  as  is  proposed  in  the  report,  at  one  dollar 
per  hundred  acres,  would  produce,  in  addition  to  revenue  by  the 
territorial  mode  of  taxation,  the  sum  of 4,348 


'*  The  constitution  gave  the  general  assembly  unlimited  power  to  set  their 
own  compensation.     Mo.  Const.,  1820,  III.  24. 

"  Senate  Journal,  pp.  743.  Emmons  was  chairman.  Report  was  made 
on   Oct.   27. 


284  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

"The  lands  sold  by  the  United  States  on  the  30th  day  of  September, 
1820,  amounted  to  1,250,934  acres,  which  being  taxed  as  is  pro- 
posed in  the  report,  would  produce  the  sum  of $12,509 

$41,281 

The  report  added  that  this  would  leave  "a  deficit  of  $3,719.00, 
to  be  provided  for  by  the  revenue  arising  from  the  increased 
tax  on  slaves;  the  tax  on  the  military  bounty  lands;  sales  at 
auction;  the  tax  on  law  process,  and  on  bank  stock;  which  will 
be  amply  sufficient,  in  the  opinion  of  the  committee,  to  make 
up  the  deficit,  and  meet  all  the  drawbacks  which  will  be  oc- 
casioned by  these  lands  forfeited  to  the  United  States,  by  reason 
of  the  purchaser  not  making  payment." 

The  general  assembly  followed  in  general  the  recommenda- 
tions of  this  report  in  regard  to  raising  revenue  and  making 
appropriations.  A  general  land,  lot,  and  improved  real  estate 
tax  was  imposed  at  the  rate  of  twenty-five  cents  on  the  hun- 
dred dollar  valuation;  slaves  and  live  stock  over  three  years 
old  were  taxed  at  the  same  rate;  pleasure  carriages,  at  one 
per  cent,  of  their  value;  furniture,  at  fifty  cents  on  the  hundred 
dollars;  watches,  at  two  dollars  on  the  hundred  dollars  (both 
furniture  and  watches  on  sale  were  exempted  from  these  taxes) ; 
and  a  poll  tax  of  one  dollar  was  imposed  on  free,  white  males 
over  twenty-one  years  old.  Special  and  license  taxes  were 
imposed  on  a  number  of  objects  and  occupations,  the  most 
important  being:  a  twenty  dollar  wine  and  liquor  license  for 
every  six  months;  a  merchants  and  peddlers  tax  of  fifteen  dollars 
to  two  hundred  dollars  every  six  months  for  the  sale  of  foreign 
made  goods;  an  auction  tax  of  three  dollars  per  one  hundred 
dollars  on  personal  property  and  one  dollar  and  a  half  per  one 
hundred  dollars  on  real  estate;  an  auctioneer's  license  of  ore 
hundred  dollars  for  every  six  months;  a  ferry  license  tax;  and  a 
billiard  table  license  of  fifty  dollars  for  every  six  months. ^^  The 
appropriation  bill  passed  at  this  session  carried  a  total  of 
$49,359,133^.     The  most  important  items  in  this  bill  were:^^ 

Salary  of  the  governor  and  eight  judges $18,000.00 

Salary  of  the  secretary  of  state,  auditor,  treasurer,  attorney  general, 

adjutant  general,  and  circuit  attorneys 3,590.00 

Contingent  expenses  of  the  office  of  secretary  of  state 500 .  00 

»•  Mo.  Laws,   1820,  pp.  90f;  92f ;  76fl;  83flf;  61f. 
•'  Mo.  Laws,   1820,  pp.  82f. 


A  De  Facto  State.  285 


Pay  of  the  members  of  the  general  assembly,  oftlcers,  and  presiden- 
tial electors $25 ,  000  00 

Printing  laws  and  journals  of  the  session 1 ,  200 .  00 

Contingent  expenses  of  the  session,  including  furniture,  sundry 
printing,  stationery,  fuel  and  janitor  service,  election  returns 
of  the  governor  and  lieutenant  governor,  rent,  state  seal,  etc.  .      1,069. 13 H 


Total $49 .  359  .131^ 

Some  of  the  separate  items  in  this  bill  together  with  the  incred- 
ible accuracy  of  the  appropriation  made  for  them,  are  remark- 
able. Only  $267.11  were  spent  by  this  general  assembly  for 
its  contingent  printing  and  the  representatives  and  senators 
used  only  $166.50  for  stationery.  The  total  printing  bill  of 
the  state,  excluding  the  constitutional  convention,  amounted 
to  only  $1,467.11;  today  the  annual  State  printing  is  close  to 
$150,000.  This  general  assembly  spent  the  ridiculous  sum  of 
$50  for  janitor  service  and  for  fuel  of  the  senate,  and  $130  for 
these  items  of  the  house.  Such  economy  is  wonderful.  Five 
dollars  was  appropriated  to  G.  Bassinet  for  making  a  model  of 
the  State  seal,  and  $25,123^  was  appropriated  for  the  sundry 
expenses  of  the  senate.  Such  economy  if  not  parsimony  is 
today  unheard  of  and  its  early  return  is  unlikely.^* 

Those  salaries  of  all  state  officers  that  were  not  set  by  the 
constitution  were  provided  for  by  legislative  enactment.  The 
salary  of  the  attorney  general  was  placed  at  five  hundred  dollars 
a  year  and  of  the  secretary  of  state,  auditor,  and  treasurer, 
each  at  seven  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  a  year.^^  The  ap- 
pointment of  persons  to  these  offices  and  to  the  judiciary,  was 
an  important  political  function  of  the  governor  and  the  legis- 
lature. Many  applicants  advanced  their  claims  and  as  one 
observer  wrote  ''it  was  a  good  thing  to  have  a  friend  at  court."  ^°^ 
Governor  McNair  was  naturally  criticised  for  many  of  his  acts 
and  especially  for  his  appointments.  The  latter  criticism  was, 
however,  based  more  on  disappointed  ambitions  than  on  facts. 
One  of  the  foremost  and  ablest  public  men  of  the  State  was 

»8  No  money  was  appropriated  in  1820  even  for  the  pay  of  Gov.  McNair's 
private  secretary,  William  G.  Pettus,  who  was  probably  compensated  by  the 
governor  from  his  private  purse. 

»»  Mo.  Laws,  1820,  pp.  38f,  66,  87fif. 

'oo  Mo.  Intell.,  Jan.  1,  1821, 


286  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

appointed  secretary  of  state.  Joshua  Barton  was  an  eminent 
lawyer  and  an  honest  public  official.  His  election  to  the  sec- 
retaryship of  state  was  but  a  recognition  of  his  talents.  Edward 
Bates  was  appointed  attorney  general;  William  Christy,  auditor; 
and  Pierre  Didier,  treasurer.  The  conspicuous  part  played  by 
Bates  in  the  convention  first  brought  him  prominently  before 
the  people.  His  connection  with  the  caucus  was  not  close. 
His  friends  were  supporters  of  both  Clark  and  McNair.  His 
integrity  was  never  questioned  and,  although  a  young  man, 
he  was  well  versed  in  the  law.  Notwithstanding  the  recom- 
mendation of  Bates  made  by  McNair,  the  senate  refused  at 
first  to  confirm  him.  McNair  sent  a  second  communication 
on  Bates  to  that  body,  which  then  endorsed  his  nomination. ^^^ 
William  Christy  was  a  native  of  Pennsylvania,  was  reared  in 
that  State  and  in  Kentucky,  and  came  to  St.  Louis  in  1804. 
He  had  served  as  auditor  for  the  Territory  and  was  a  prominent 
politician. ^^^  Pierre  Didier  was  a  native  of  St.  Louis  and  his 
appointment  to  the  office  of  State  treasurer  by  the  general 
assembly  was  probably  due  to  the  influence  exerted  for  him 
by  his  French  friends  in  St.  Louis  and  the  adjoining  counties.^^^ 
The  appointment  of  the  judges,  including  three  of  the  supreme 
court,  a  chancellor,  and  four  judges  for  the  circuit  courts,  was 
a  long  drawn  out  struggle  between  the  governor  and  the  senate. 
The  senate  sat  behind  closed  doors  and  at  least  two  of  the 
governor's  candidates  were  rejected.  It  is  probable  that  those 
finally  appointed  either  owed  their  office  as  much  to  the  senate 
as  to  the  governor  or  were  compromise  appointees.^""*  The 
supreme  court  judges  finally  appointed  were  Mathias  McGirk, 
senator  from  St.  Louis  county,  John  D.  Cook,  of  Cape  Girar- 
deau county,  and  John  Rice  Jones,  of  Washington  county. 
Cook  and  Jones  had  been  delegates  to  the  constitutional  con- 
vention and  had  been  active  leaders  in  that  body.  The  former 
was  barely  qualified  to  serve  as  judge  on  account  of  his  youth. 


"»  Senate  Journal,   1820,  p.  36. 
'»'Houck,  Hist.   Mo..  III.  48, 

)oj  The  office  of  State  treasurer  was  filled  according  to  the  constitution  by 
the  general  assembly,  the  governor  having  no  voice  in  selecting  the  occupant. 
^0*  St.  Louis  Enquirer,  Nov.  18,  1820,  editorial. 


A  De  Facto  State.  287 

the  latter  on  account  of  his  age.^°^  McGirk  resigned  his  seat 
in  the  senate  on  November  27th,  in  order  to  accept  the  appoint- 
ment to  the  supreme  court  bench. ^*^^  He  had  served  in  the 
Territorial  Council  and  this  was  the  only  public  office  he 
had  filled.  Like  John  D.  Cook,  McGirk  was  a  young  man 
being  barely  thirty  years  of  age.  He  was  a  popular  man  but 
was  not  especially  learned  in  the  law.  He  served,  however, 
as  supreme  court  judge  for  twenty-one  years  and  it  is  said  that 
his  opinions  in  the  first  six  volumes  of  the  Missouri  Reports 
will  compare  favorably  with  those  of  any  other  judge  of  his 
time.^^^  William  Harper  was  appointed  chancellor.  Little  is 
known  regarding  his  life  but  it  is  presumed  that  he  later  went 
to  South  Carolina  several  years  after  his  office  had  been  abol- 
ished in  Missouri. ^^^  The  four  circuit  court  judges  were  David 
Todd,  Rufus  Pettibone,  Nathaniel  Beverly  Tucker  and  Richard 
S.  Thomas.  All  were  good  lawyers,  the  first  three  being  grad- 
uates of  colleges.  Thomas  had  been  a  delegate  to  the  con- 
stitutional convention  and  only  the  anti-slavery  attitude  had 
prevented  Pettibone  from  election  to  that  body.^^^  The  per- 
sonnel of  both  the  executive  and  judicial  departments  of  the 
State  government  was  high.  Much  of  the  stability  that  is 
apparent  in  the  early  history  of  the  State  was  doubtless  due  to 
the  character  and  ability  of  such  public  offtcers  as  Bates,  Barton, 
Cook,  Jones,  McGirk,  and  other  eminent  lawyers  of  that  day. 
One  of  the  important  political  acts  of  the  general  assembly 
at  this  session  was  the  election  of  the  first  presidential  electors 
from  Missouri.  This  took  place  at  3  P.  M.,  on  November  2. 
The  election  was  made  by  a  joint  vote  of  both  houses.  "Those 
members  of  the  Legislature  whose  names  were  before  the  public 
as  candidates  for  electors,  declined  standing  a  poll,  the  better 
opinion  prevailing  that  a  member  of  the  Legislature  could  not 
consistently  with  the  Constitution  of  this  state  hold  the  office 


106  The  constitution  had  a  minimum  age  qualification  for  judges  of  thirty 
years,  and  a  maximum  one  of  sixty-five  years. 

^0*  Senate  Journal,  1820,  p.  141. 

^0^  Bay,  pp.  536,  He  came  to  Missouri  about  1814  or  1816.  After  his  ap- 
pointment to  the  bench  he  moved  to  Montgomery  county  and  married  into  the 
Tabbott  family. 

i««Houck,  His.  Mo.,  III.  267. 

'^^Bay,  pp.  389fl.,  98f.,  251;  Houck,  Hist.  Mo.,  Ill,  9ff. 


288  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

of  elector,  and  that  the  acceptance  of  the  latter  office  would 
vacate  the  former."  ^^^  The  three  electors  chosen  were  Major 
William  Christy,  of  St.  Louis  county,  John  S.  Brickey,  of  Cooper, 
and  William  Shannon,  of  Ste.  Genevieve.  All  three  pledged 
themselves  to  vote  for  James  Monroe  as  president  and  Daniel 
D.  Tomklns  for  vice  president  of  the  United  States."^ 

The  legislative  activity  of  the  first  general  assembly  at  this 
session  was  considerable  despite  the  controversies  waged  over 
the  important  elections  and  appointments  made  by  the  general 
assembly  and  by  the  governor  and  senate  and  despite  the  long 
drawn  out  struggles  over  the  location  of  the  temporary  seat  of 
government  and  the  proposing  of  constitutional  amendments. 
Fifty-one  laws  were  enacted,  the  majority  being  necessary  for 
perfecting  the  organization  of  the  State  government.  The 
duties  of  the  various  state  and  local  administrative  officials 
were  determined;  the  judiciary  was  defined  and  regulated  as 
regards  jurisdiction  and  the  time  and  place  of  holding  court; 
provision  was  made  for  taking  the  census;  and  the  militia  was 
given  an  organization.  Some  private  bills  for  Incorporating 
academies  and  for  the  relief  of  Individuals  were  also  passed. 
Excepting  the  state  organization  laws  and  the  revenue  measures, 
the  most  important  laws  passed  related  to  the  establishing  of 
new  counties,  the  selecting  of  six  of  the  twelve  Salt  Springs 
donated  by  the  National  Government,  the  appointing  of  a 
commission  to  report  on  a  site  for  the  permanent  seat  of  gov- 
ernment, and  the  preventing  of  waste  on  the  public  school 
lands.  Ten  new  counties  were  established  at  this  session — 
Boone,  Callaway,  Charlton,  Cole,  Gasconade,  Perry,  Ray, 
Saline,  Lillard  and  Ralls.  Five  lay  north  of  the  Missouri  River, 
five  south.  Eight  of  these,  however,  were  formed  from  either 
the  Salt  River  or  the  Boone's  Lick  country  and  these  greatly 
increased  the  power  of  the  frontier  in  the  legislature.  The 
commission  appointed  to  report  on  the  location  of  the  permanent 
seat  of  government  was  composed  of  John  Thornton,  of  Howard 
county,  Robert  Guy  Watson,  of  New  Madrid,  John  B.  White, 
of  Pike,  James  Logan,  of  Wayne,  and  Jesse  B.  Boone,  of  Mont- 

"»S«.  Louis  Enquirer.  Nov.  4,  1820;  Senate  Journal,  1820,  p.  89. 
'"  Ibid. 


A  De  Facto  State.  289 

gomery.^^2  Only  two  of  the  five  commissioners  were  legislators, 
Logan  being  a  senator  and  Boone  a  representative.  A  resolu- 
tion was  offered  in  the  house  by  Geyer,  of  St.  Louis,  for  the 
committee  on  finances  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  author- 
izing a  loan  of  §1,000,000  on  the  State's  credit,  redeemable  in 
twenty  years,  for  establishing  a  State  bank.^^'  Nothing  came 
of  this  attempt  to  establish  a  State  bank  and  seventeen  years 
passed  before  such  an  institution  was  chartered  in  Missouri. 
Attempt  was  also  made  to  select  the  designs  for  the  Great  Seal 
of  the  State.  The  house  wanted  as  part  of  the  emblem  "a 
cock  close  around,  resting  on  a  sheaf  of  wheat;"  the  senate 
struck  out  "cock"  and  inserted  "an  eagle."  ^^^  It  was  not, 
however,  until  1822  that  a  law  was  passed  describing  the  Great 
Seal. 

Besides  enacting  laws  the  general  assembly  seems  to  have 
passed  several  resolutions  and  memorials.  The  volume  of  ses- 
sion acts  of  this  session  does  not  incorporate  any  of  these.  A 
resolution  was  introduced  and  was  probably  passed  for  cor- 
recting the  errors  found  in  the  printed  draft  of  the  constitution; 
and  another  providing  that  an  exchange  of  the  laws  of  the  State 
be  made  with  New  Hampshire,  Pennsylvania  and  Virginia. ^^^ 
Several  memorials  to  Congress  were  also  introduced  and  appear 
to  have  passed.  These  were  on  the  questions  of  pre-emption 
rights,  an  extension  of  credit  for  paying  for  public  lands,  and  on 
the  subject  of  laying  additional  duties  on  foreign  lead  and  iron. 
A  protective  tariff  on  these  minerals  that  were  produced  so 
extensively  in  Missouri  was  desired  by  a  large  part  of  the 
population  even  in  1820.  No  record  has  been  found  of  these 
memorials  having  been  presented  to  Congress  in  1820  and 
1821.^^^  Finally  after  a  session  of  eighty-six  days,  seventy- 
four  being  devoted  to  legislation,  the  first  session  of  the  general 
assembly  adjourned   on   December   12,    1820.^^^ 

«u  Mo.  Laws,   1820,  pp.   15f. 

»»A/o.  IntelL,  Nov.  1.  1820. 

11*  Senate  Journal,  1820,  pp.  145f. 

ii»  Senate  Journal,  1820.  pp.  29,  40. 

ii«  S?.  Louis  Enquirer,  Sept.  30,  1820;  Senate  Journal.  1820,  pp.  84;  Mo.  Gaz., 
Oct.    11,  25,   Nov.   1,   1820. 

11'  Mo.  Intel!.,  Jan.  1,  1821.  The  Intelligencer  says  after  a  session  of  eighty- 
four  days. 

M  S — 19 


CHAPTER  X. 
SECOND  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE. 

The  framing  of  the  Missouri  constitution  of  1820,  the 
election  of  state  and  local  officials,  and  the  organization  of  a 
state  government,  did  not,  as  had  been  expected,  either  actually 
or  virtually  settle  Missouri's  struggle  for  statehood.  That 
Missouri  had  a  state  government  in  nearly  full  working,  that 
Missourians  regarded  Missouri  as  a  state,  and  that  a  large  part 
of  the  Nation  shared  this  view,  did  not  deter  northern  states- 
men and  their  constituents  from  making  plans  to  delay,  if  not 
defeat,  Missouri's  admission.  These  plans  were  publicly  ex- 
pressed in  the  eastern  newspapers  and  were  copied  by  the  Mis- 
souri press  as  early  as  in  September,  1820.^ 

It  was,  therefore,  not  surprising  that  Barton,  Benton  and 
Scott  were  not  permitted  to  take  their  seats  in  Congress  when 
they  arrived  in  Washington,  November  16,  1820.^  The  ap- 
ponents  of  the  State  maintained  that  until  the  1820  constitu- 
tion was  accepted,  Missouri's  senators  and  representative  in 
Congress  were  suspended.  This  viewpoint  was  maintained 
and  enforced  during  the   1820-1821  session  of  Congress.^ 

Scott  would  have  been  allowed  a  seat  in  the  House  if  he 

had  acted  as  a  delegate  but  such  an  act  would  have  impliedly 

confessed  that  Missouri  was  still  a  territory.     This  important 

point  was  concisely  stated  by  Scott  in  a  letter  to  C.  S.  Hemp- 

^stead,  dated  Washington  City,  December  31,   1820: 

"None  of  us  have  our  seats.  I  will  not  act  as  Delegate;  because  I  take  the 
ground  that  we  are  a  STATE — and  so  do  all  our  friends — and  were  I  to  act  as 
Delegate,  it  might  be  construed  into  an  acknowldgement  that  we  are  still  a  ter- 
ritory. The  consequence  is,  that  the  business  of  Missouri,  land  claims  and  all, 
stand  still,  till  we  are  disposed  of  in  our  state  pretensions."  * 

These  "state  pretensions"  were  brought  before  the  at- 
tention of  the  second  session  of  the  sixteenth  Congress  shortly 

>  Cf.,  St.  Louis  Eng.,  Sept.-Dec,  1820. 
*  Mo.  Intell.,  Dec.  18.  1820.  Jan.  1,  1821. 

»  Cf.,  letter  of  Col.  John  Williams,   U.   S.   Senator  from  Tennessee,  dated, 
Washington.  Jan.  7,  1821.     (T.  A.  Smith  Afss.) 
«  St.  Louis  Enq.,  Jan.  27,  1821. 

(290) 


Second  Missouri  Compromise.  291 

after  the  convening  of  the  two  houses.  A  copy  of  the  Missouri 
constitution  was  laid  before  the  Senate  on  November  14th — 
the  second  day  of  the  session :  and  another  copy  was  laid  before 
the  House  by  Mr.  Scott  on  the  16th  inst.  Both  bodies  at  once 
referred  these  documents  to  committees.^ 

The  Senate  was  known  to  be  favorably  inclined  towards 
admitting  Missouri,  but  the  House  was  regarded  as  being 
strongly  opposed  to  this.  The  Senate  committee  to  which  had 
been  referred  the  Missouri  constitution  reported  favorably  on 
November  29th  and  presented  a  resolution  declaring  the  ad- 
mission of  the  new  State.^  The  opponents  of  admission  and  of 
the  resolution  at  once  attacked  that  clause  in  Missouri's  con- 
stitution which  made  it  commandatory  on  the  general  assembly 
of  the  State  to  pass  laws  "to  prevent  free  negroes  and  mulattoes 
from  coming  to,  and  settling  in,  this  state,  under  any  pretext 
whatsoever."  To  conciliate  these  opponents  in  the  Senate  the 
following  proviso  to  the  statehood  resolution  was  offered  by 
Mr.  Eaton  of  Tennessee: 

"Provided,  That  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  so  construed  as  to  give 
the  assent  of  Congress  to  any  provision  in  the  constitution  of  ]Missouri,  if  any 
such  there  be,  which  contravenes  that  clause  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  which  declares  that  'the  citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all 
privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several  States.'  "  ' 

This  proviso  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  twenty-one  to  twenty- 
four,  and  for  the  next  four  days  the  Missouri  Question  was 
long  debated  in  the  Senate.  The  resolution  of  admission  having 
been  finally  amended  by  the  Eaton  proviso,  was  adopted  by  a 
vote  of  twenty-six  to  eighteen  on  December  11th,  and  was 
sent  to  the  House,  where  after  being  read  once  it  was  ordered 
to  lie  on  the  table. ^ 

During  this  time  the  House  had  been  considering  the 
Missouri  Question  independently.  The  House  committee,  of 
w^hich  Mr.  Lowndes  was  chairman,  and  to  which  had  been 
referred  the  Missouri  constitution,  presented  a  report  on  No- 
vember 23rd  advising  the  admission  of  Missouri.  This  report 
made   mention   of   the   objectionable   free   negro  clause   in   the 


6  Annals  of  Cong.,  pp.  10,  440. 

«  Ibid.,  p.  26f.;  31fif. 

'  Ibid.,  p.  41. 

^  Ibid.,  pp.  45,   116,  641f. 


292  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

twenty-sixth  section  of  article  three  of  the  Missouri  constitution 
but  said  that  such  a  provision  existed  in  the  laws  of  at  least 
one  state,  Delaware,  and  that  discrimination  was  made  every- 
where between  whites  and  blacks  regarding  voting  and  jury 
service.  It  further  advised  that  such  questions  as  these  were 
judicial  questions  and  not  legislative  ones.^  This  report  was 
accompanied  by  a  resolution  of  admittance  which  after  being 
read  the  second  time  was  referred  to  the  committee  of  the 
whole.  The  Lowndes  resolution  was  debated  in  the  committee 
of  the  whole  and  before  the  House  from  December  6th  to  the 
13th  and  was  finally  rejected  for  engrossment  by  a  vote  of 
seventy-nine  to  ninety- three. ^'^  The  first  phase  of  the  struggle 
leading  up  to  the  second  Missouri  Compromise  had  ended. 
The  northern  majority  in  the  House  had  not  only  succeeded  in 
preventing  the  admission  of  Missouri  during  1820,  but  had 
put  a  doubt  in  the  hearts  of  Missouri's  supporters  that  the 
State  would  not  be  admitted  even  during  that  Congress. 

When  Missouri  received  news  of  the  new  Missouri  struggle 
in  Congress  and  of  the  defeat  of  the  Lowndes  resolution  in  the 
House,  the  press  and  the  people  of  the  State  took  a  firm  but 
pessimistic  attitude.  The  expressions  of  public  opinion  were 
strangely  neither  boastful  nor  defiant.  Never  did  Missouri 
more  calmly  and  determinedly  analyze  a  condition  critical  to 
herself  and  to  the  Nation  than  at  this  time.  Never  was  a  people 
more  united,  more  of  one  thought  in  their  convictions,  than 
were  MIssourians  during  the  winter  of  1820-1821.  They  re- 
garded Missouri  as  a  state,  and,  whether  or  not  Congress  passed 
an  act  of  admission,  were  determined  that  she  would  never 
again  become  a  territory  unless  force  was  used.  They  thought 
that  Missouri  had  acted  legally  when  a  state  constitution  was 
formed  and  adopted  and  a  state  government  was  established. 
They  saw  nothing  in  Missouri's  constitution  that  was  contrary 
to  the  United  States  constitution,  but,  they  said,  if  by  chance 
there  were  an  illegal  provision  in  it  then  the  interpretation  of 
this  was  a  judicial  and  not  a  legislative  function.  They  were 
convinced  that  the  northern  members  of  Congress  were  trying 


»  Am.  State  Papers,  Misc..  II.  625. 
^^  Ibid.,  p.  670. 


Second  Missouri  Compromise.  293 

to  embarrass  Missouri,  increase  the  extent  of  free  soil,  and  im- 
pose their  will  on  the  slave  states. ^^ 

While  the  Missouri  press  was  full  of  editorials  expressing 
these  views,  only  one  utterance  is  preserved  today  that  issued 
from  a  judicial  body.  The  St.  Louis  county  circuit  court  on 
December  18,  1820,  resolved  that  "The  state  government  was 
not  only  theoretically  formed,  but  in  full  and  constitutional  opera- 
tion, as  regarded  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  and  that 
of  the  State  of  Missouri."  ^^ 

Such  convictions  were  not  based  merely  on  hasty  and 
natural  inclination  but  were  founded  on  full  information  of  the 
debates  in  Congress  and  were  in  accord  with  the  many  public 
letters  of  Barton  and  Benton,  which  appeared  in  Missouri 
newspapers.  Benton  wrote  to  the  editor  of  the  Missouri 
Intelligencer  on  November  22nd,  that  the  northern  restriction- 
ists  in  the  House  would  oppose  Missouri  on  the  pretext  of  the 
free  negro  and  mulatto  clause  "when  almost  every  state  in  the 
Union,  even  the  free  states  themselves,  have  the  same  pro- 
vision, as  will  be  freely  shown  in  the  course  of  the  debates 
here."  ^^  And  on  the  same  date  Benton  wrote  to  the  Enquirer 
in  part  as  follows: 

"Barton,  Scott,  and  myself  have  searched  the  laws  of  the  different  states, 
and  found  provisions  on  this  subject  [the  free  negro  and  mulatto  clause]  which 
will  make  a  fine  contrast  with  the  speeches  of  some  of  the  northern  members."  i' 

On  December  19th,  Benton  again  wrote  the  Intelligencer  and 
stated  that  "all  the  friends  of  Missouri  here  consider  her  to  be 
a  State  in  point  of  fact  and  in  point  of  right;  and  expect  her  to 
go  on  calmly  and  firmly  with  the  operations  of  her  government, 
preserving  all  the  points  of  relationship  with  the  government  of 
the  United  States  which  her  anomalous  position  will  permit 
of."  14 

On  December  3rd,  Barton  wrote  the  St.  Louis  Enquirer 
that  New  York  was  leading  the  restrictionists  and  that  "most 
of  the  northern  and  northwestern  members  chime  in;  and  if 

!"»  St.   Charles  Mo.,  Jan.   13,   1821;  St.  Louis  Enq.,   Dec.  23,   1820,  Jan.  20, 
27,  1821;  (St.  Louis)  Mo.  Gaz.,  Dec.  20,  27,  1820;  Jan.  10,  Feb.  7,  1821. 
i^  Niles  Reg.,  Feb.  3,  1821. 
^*  Mo.  InteU.,  Jan.  1,  1821. 
"  St.  Louis  Enq.,  Dec.  23,  1820. 
'*  Mo.  InteU. ,  Jan.  29,  1821.     C/.,  St.  Louis  Enq.,  Jan.  21,  1821. 


294  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

I  am  not  misinformed,  some  of  the  cabinet  aid  and  abet  the 
enemies  of  our  rights — We  should  (not)  be  surprised  after  four 
years  to  see  our  next  President  riding  into  the  City  of  Wash- 
ington, not  on  a  white  horse,  or  on  an  ass's  colt,  but  on  a  free 
negro  or  mulatto  ....  but  if  we  should  be  rejected,  I  hope 
Missouri  has  spirit  and  energy  enough  to  adhere  to  her  con- 
stitution in  respect  to  the  disputed  point,  and  if  it  must 
go  down,  to  go  down  with  it."  ^^ 

Having  the  backing  of  the  Senate  and  of  nearly  half  of 
the  House,  endorsed  by  the  Executive  and  supposedly  by  the 
judiciary,  convinced  of  the  justice  of  their  cause  and  of  the 
injustice  attempted  to  be  hoisted  on  them,  and  guided  by  their 
public  men  and  statesmen,  Missouri  had  no  hesitancy  in  taking 
a  firm  stand  for  her  state  constitution  and  her  state  government. 
To  have  acted  otherwise  would  either  have  branded  her  inhabit- 
ants as  cowards  or  have  revealed  a  strong  anti-slavery  or 
restrictionist  feeling  in  the  State.  If  Congress  had  not  finally 
passed  an  act  of  admission  the  situation  in  Missouri  might  have 
become  critical. ^^ 

The  Christmas  holidays  of  1820  had  barely  ended  when  the 
Missouri  Question  was  again  before  the  House.  This  time  the 
subject  was  considered  in  a  new  form:  Was  Missouri  a  state 
or  a  territory?  And  what  was  the  condition  of  the  Federal 
judiciary  in  Missouri?  Three  memorials  from  the  legislature 
of  Missouri  had  been  presented  to  the  House.  The  debate 
there  turned  on  the  point  as  to  whether  the  Journal  of  the 
House  should  record  these  memorials  as  coming  from  the  State 
or  the  Territory  of  Missouri.  The  first  two  weeks  in  January 
were  spent  in  debating  these  points  and  it  was  decided  to  enter 
the  memorials  as  being  simply  from  Missouri. ^^ 

The  Senate  resolution  of  admission  was  read  the  second 
time  on  January  15th  in  the  House  and  was  then  referred  to  the 
committee  of  the  whole.  While  this  resolution  was  up  for 
discussion   another   resolution   was   introduced   by   Mr.    Eustis 


»»S<.  Louis  Enq.,  Doc.  30,  1820;  Mo.  IntelL,  Jan.  15,  1821.  C/.,  letter  from 
"One  of  Missouri's  Senators  to  Congress"  (probably  Barton),  in  Mo.  IntelL,  Jan. 
29.    1821. 

>«  C/.,  Jefferson's  Writings,  X.  175fl,  letter  to  Gallatin,  dated  Dec.  26,  1820. 

^^  Annals,    pp.    73-803. 


Second  Missouri  Compromise.  295 

admitting  Missouri  on  a  certain  (?)  day  provided  the  free  negro 
and  mulatto  clause  had  been  expunged  from  the  Missouri  con- 
stitution on  or  before  that  day.  This  last  resolution  was  de- 
feated for  engrossment  by  a  vote  of  six  to  one  hundred  and 
forty-six. ^^  One  effort  having  been  made  and  lost  to  strike 
out  the  proviso  in  the  Senate's  resolution,  the  following  proviso 
to  that  resolution  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Foot: 

''Provided,  That  it  shall  be  taken  as  a  fundamental  condition,  upon  which 
the  said  State  is  incorporated  in  the  Union,  that  so  much  of  the  26th  section  of 
the  3rd  article  of  the  constitution  which  has  been  submitted  to  Congress,  as  de- 
clares it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  General  Assembly  'to  prevent  free  negroes  and 
mulattoes  from  coming  to,  or  settling  in,  this  State,  under  any  pretext  what- 
soever, shall  be  expunged,  within  two  years  from  the  passage  of  this  resolution, 
by  the  General  Assembly  of  Missouri,  in  the  manner  prescribed  for  amending  said 
constitution."  i« 

Mr.  Storrs  moved  an  amendment  to  Mr.  Foot's  proviso,  which 
was,  to  strike  out  all  of  the  latter  after  the  word  ''Union"  and 
in  lieu  thereof  insert  the  following: 

"And  to  be  of  perpetual  obligation  on  the  said  State,  (in  faith  whereof  this 
resolution  is  passed  by  Congress,)  that  no  law  shall  ever  be  enacted  by  the  said 
State  impairing  or  contravening  the  rights,  privileges,  or  immunities,  secured  to 
citizens  of  the  United  States:  And  provided,  further.  That  the  Legislature  acting 
under  the  constitution  already  adopted  in  Missouri  as  a  State,  shall  as  a  conven- 
tion, (for  which  purpose  the  consent  of  Congress  is  hereby  granted,)  declare  their 
assent  by  a  public  act  to  the  said  condition  before  the  next  session  of  Congress, 
and  transmit  to  Congress  an  attested  copy  of  such  act,  by  the  first  day  of  the 
said  session."  •'> 

This  resolution  of  Mr.  Storrs'  was  lost  by  a  vote  of  eighty  to 
sixty-one  and  a  similar  one  offered  by  M.  Hackley  was  lost  by 
a  vote  of  seventy  to  sixty-six.  Mr.  Cobb  then  moved  to  strike 
out  all  of  Mr.  Foot's  amendment  after  the  word  ''Union"  and 
insert  the  following: 

"That  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Missouri  shall  pass  no  law  impairing 
the  pri\ileges  and  immunities  secured  to  the  citizens  of  each  State,  under  the  first 
clause  of  the  second  section  of  the  fourth  article  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 

States." 

This  amendment  was  lost  by  a  vote  of  seventy-four  to  sixty- 
five  and  Mr.  Foot's  was  also  lost.^^  A  number  of  amendments 
was  then  proposed  similar  to  either  the  Foot,  Storrs,  Cobb,  or 
Senate  proviso,  and  all  were  defeated.     Mr.  Clay  seeing  that  all 


18  IMd.,  pp.  942flf. 

>»  Ibid.,  pp.  983fl. 

«» Ihid.,  p.  990. 

«'  Ibid.,  p.    1002. 


296  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

effort  at  amendment  had  failed,  and  desirous  of  settling  the 
question,  moved  to  refer  the  Senate's  resolution  to  a  committee 
of  thirteen  members.  This  motion  was  agreed  to  and  the 
thirteen  members  were  appointed — eight  of  whom  were  from 
free  states  and  the  chairman  of  which  was  Clay.^^ 

This  committee  reported  a  resolution  of  admission  to  the 
House  on  February  10th,  which  was  similar  to  the  one  finally 
adopted.  The  two  points  of  difference  were  that  this  original 
Clay  resolution  did  not  refer  to  the  free  negro  and  mulatto  pro- 
vision by  clause,  section  and  article,  but  simply  stated  that 
Missouri  should  not  pass  laws  preventing  any  description  of 
persons  from  coming  to  and  settling  in  Missouri,  who  were 
citizens  of  other  States;  and  that  it  contained  a  proviso,  later 
cut  out,  which  stated  that  nothing  in  this  resolution  was  to 
impair  the  exercise  by  Missouri  of  any  right  constitutionally 
exercised  by  the  original  States.^^  After  lengthy  debate  the 
Clay  select  committee's  report  was  reported  on  unfavorably 
by  the  committee  of  the  whole.^^  The  House  by  the  close  vote 
of  eighty-six  to  eighty-three  refused  to  concur  with  this  report 
and  then,  equally  strangely,  by  a  vote  of  eight}^  to  eighty-three, 
refused  to  advance  the  Senate's  resolution  as  thus  amended  to 
a  third  reading.^^  After  voting  by  one  hundred  and  one  to 
sixty  to  reconsider  this  last  vote,  the  House  again  voted  down 
the  Senate's  amended  resolution  by  eighty-two  to  eighty-eight.-^ 

This  definitely  sealed  the  fate  of  the  Senate's  resolution 
in  the  House.  It  seemed  that  the  northern  representatives 
were  to  triumph  and  Missouri's  admission  would  be  delayed 
until  a  new  Congress  convened.  A  number  of  compromises 
had  been  proposed  in  the  House  and  all  had  been  defeated. 
The  determination  of  the  slavery  restrictionists  and  of  others 
to  defeat  Missouri  had  succeeded  and  that  State's  future  was 
even  darker  than  it  had  been  in  December.  In  Missouri,  how- 
ever, the  attitude  of  the  people  was  one  of  determined  con- 
fidence in  the  continuance  of  their  State  government.     Bitter 


"  Ibid.,  p.  1027. 

"  Ibid.,  p.  1080. 

'<  Ibid.,  p.  1114. 

'<■  Ibid.,  p.  1116. 

*'  Ibid.,  pp.  1120.  1140. 


Second  Missouri  Compromise.  297 

resentment  was  also  felt  that  Congress  would  attempt  to  act 
so  perfidiously.  The  editor  of  the  St.  Louis  Enquirer  wrote: 
"And  the  pretext  for  this  (opposition)  is  that  the  rights  of  a 
few  vagabond  negroes  may  possibly  be  infringed!  ....  The 
rejection  of  Missouri,  not  the  admission,  is  the  object  to  be 
accomplished,  and  the  clause  respecting  free  negroes  suffices 
for  the  purpose  .  .  .  .  At  all  events,  let  us  by  a  mild,  tem- 
perate, but  firm  demeanor,  shew  that  we  are  satisfied  with  the 
justice  of  our  cause."  ^^ 

The  determined  confidence  of  Missouri  in  her  state  govern- 
ment was  forcibly  set  forth  in  an  editorial  that  appeared  in  the 
St.  Louis  Enquirer  of  March  10,  1821.  These  extracts  illustrate 
the  tone  of  that  editorial :  "It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  not  generally 
known  abroad  perhaps,  that  the  monumental  Missouri  question, 
nowhere  in  the  United  States,  is  looked  upon  so  calmly  and 
dispassionately  as  in  Missouri  ....  Our  state  government  is 
in  full  and  complete  operation  ....  The  territorial  govern- 
ment is  almost  forgotten  .  .  .  .  It  is  (a)  matter  of  fact  that 
we  are  a  state.  We  both  see  and  feel  its  operations  ....  It 
is  very  manifest,  therefore,  that  such  change  (back  to  a  ter- 
ritory) can  never  take  place  ....  We  could  not,  for  instance 
by  an  act  of  ours,  get  back  the  territorial  governor  and  judges, 
and  the  senate  of  the  United  States,  entertaining  their  present 
opinion,  w^ould  of  course  not  reappoint  them  ....  When 
the  question  of  restriction  was  first  agitated  in  congress,  it 
excited  much  feeling  and  alarm  in  the  then  territory  [of  Mis- 
souri] ....  Thoroughly  understanding  their  rights,  the  People 
of  Missouri  yet  waited  with  a  most  forbearing  patience  .... 
Bounds  were,  however,  set  to  forbearance,  and  preparations 
had  commenced  for  calling  a  Convention  without  the  consent 
of  Congress.  That  consent  having  been  given  ....  Mis- 
souri proceeded  with  her  characteristic  moderation,  order  and 
firmness,  to  form  a  constitution  of  government  ....  In  the 
organization  of  the  new  government,  so  far  from  manifesting 
any  disposition  ever  to  retrace  her  steps,  the  barely  possible 
event  (for  such  it  was  deemed)  of  our  constitution  being  re- 
jected, was  anticipated  and  provided  against.     Care  was  taken 


"  Feb.   17,   1821. 


298  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

to  appoint  no  man  to  office,  whose  opinion  was  not  known  to  he 
in  favor  of  the  unqualified  sovereignty  of  the  state.  An  explicit 
assurance  to  that  effect  was  required  of  the  judges — and  it  may 
safely  be  affirmed  that  in  no  township  of  the  state  could  any  man 
avowing  a  different  opinion,  have  obtained  the  appointment  of 
constable.  The  present  prevailing  calmness  of  the  public 
mind  .  .  .  .  ,  must  not  be  misunderstood  as  the  effect  of  doubt 
as  to  our  rights,  intimidation  at  opposition  or  indifference  as  to 
the  result.  It  is  the  calmness  of  fixed  determination.  We 
know  we  are  an  independent  state,  and  are  resolved  to  remain 
so  ...  .  The  People  of  Missouri  have  also  become  disgusted 
with  the  proceedings  of  the  present  session  of  Congress,  and 
think  it  trifling  to  dispute  with  men,  who  set  all  candor  and 
fair  reasoning  at  defiance."  ^^  The  tone  of  this  editorial  was 
representative  of  what  appeared  in  other  Missouri  newspapers. 
The  people  of  Missouri  were  actually  less  concerned  over  their 
admission  than  were  the  members  of  Congress.  Missouri  had 
a  state  constitution  and  a  state  government,  and  unless  the 
complexion  of  the  United  States  Senate  changed  there  seemed 
little  reason  for  thinking  the  State  would  revert  to  a  territory. 
Missourians  also  took  pride  in  their  determined  and  secure 
attitude  towards  the  north.  There  is  little  doubt  that  the 
peculiar  position  occupied  by  Missouri  in  1820  and  1821  did 
much  to  knit  closely  the  early  pioneers  of  those  days.  Intense 
state  pride  in  Missouri  during  those  years  almost  reached  the 
heights  of  patriotism.  It  speaks  well  for  the  broadminded- 
ness  and  loyalty  of  Missourians  that  in  1861-65  they  enlisted 
over  100,000  strong  in  the  army  of  a  Nation  that  forty  years 
before  had  so  perfidiously  played  low  politics  in  refusing  them 
admission  into  the  Union. 

The  perfidiousness  of  Congress  in  seizing  upon  the  free 
negro  clause  in  Missouri's  constitution  was  commented  on  by 
Barton  in  a  letter  dated  February  11,  1821,  to  the  Missouri 
Intelligencer  and  to  the  St.  Louis  Enquirer.-^     He  wrote  in  part: 


»«  Cf.,  also  Mo.  Gaz.,  Jan.  10.  Feb.  7.  1821;  St.  Charles  Mo..  March  24.  1821; 
Mo.  Intell.,  Feb.  19.  March  19.  26.  1821. 

2»  Afo.  Intell.,  April  16,  1821;  St.  Louis  Enq.,  March  24.  1821. 


Second  Missouri  Compromise.  299 

"You  have  observed,  that  the  free  negro  clause  in  our  constitution  is  made 
their  pretext  of  opposition,  tliough  I  presume  no  honest,  intelligent  man  believes 
tills  to  be  their  true  reason,  or  would  believe  so,  if  they  had  not  unveiled  themselves 
....  These  free  negro  apostles  indulge  the  delusive  hope  that  a  revolution  of 
sentiment  can  be  effected  in  Missouri.  They  are  led  to  this  belief  ....  that 
large  minorities  in  favor  of  restriction  exist  in  each  county!  (i.  e.,  in  Missouri.) 
Encouraged  by  such  hopes,  and  being  wholly  free  from  the  embarassments  of 
political  honesty  and  public  faith,  the  leaders  in  the  House  of  Representatives 
are  endeavoring  to  secure  to  themselves  the  benefits  of  an  open  question,  and 
a  new  struggle  in  the  succeeding  Congress.  It  is  not  believed,  however,  that 
the  honest  republicans  of  the  north,  thus  advised  of  their  (the  restrictionistsj 
ultimate  objects,  will  go  with  them  through  their  criminal  course." 

The  defeat  of  the  amended  Senate  resolution  admitting 
Missouri  did  not  delay  the  continued  discussion  of  the  Mis- 
souri Question.  This  question  was,  however,  presented  in  a 
new  form  on  February  14th  and  for  that  day  surpassed  in 
nation-wide  interest  even  the  counting  of  the  presidential  elec- 
toral votes.  Missouri  had  in  conformity  with  both  state  and 
national  law  cast  her  votes  for  President  and  Vice  President 
and  had  three  electoral  votes  to  be  counted  by  Congress.  The 
question  arose  whether  these  three  votes  could  be  officially 
counted  since  Missouri  had  not  been  admitted.  Clay  reported 
a  compromise  resolution  whereby  the  results  of  the  election 
were  to  be  stated  in  two  ways — one  by  including  Missouri's 
votes,  and  one  by  omitting  these  votes.  Clay  explained  the 
policy  of  this  by  stating  that  since  there  was  opposition  to 
recognizing  Missouri  as  a  state  and  since  the  votes  of  Missouri 
would  not  effect  the  results  of  the  elections,  he  thought  it  wise 
to  avoid  dispute  and  to  adopt  the  resolution.  The  discussion 
following  this  report  was  remarkable  for  its  violence.  However, 
the  resolution  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  ninety-five  to  fifty .^° 
This  left  the  question  of  admitting  Missouri  an  open  one  before 
both  houses. 

The  Senate  was  the  first  to  take  action.  A  resolution  of 
admission  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Roberts,  which  contained 
the  proviso  that  the  fourth  clause  of  the  twenty-sixth  section 
of  the  third  article  of  Missouri's  constitution  should  be  modified 
as  soon  as  the  provisions  of  that  constitution  would  admit, 
so  that  this  clause  would  not  be  applicable  to  any  persons  who 
were  citizens  of  the  United  States  and  that  until  this  clause 


*<>  Annals,  pp.  1147-1166. 


300  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

was  so  modified  no  law  should  be  passed  in  conformity  with  its 
import. ^^  After  several  amendments  had  been  proposed,  this 
resolution  was  rejected  by  a  vote  of  nineteen  to  twenty-four 
on  February  21st.^2 

On  the  same  day  that  the  Senate  rejected  the  Roberts' 
resolution,  the  House  again  took  the  Missouri  Question  under 
consideration.  On  the  following  day  Clay  proposed  that  a 
House  committee  of  twenty-three  members  be  appointed  to 
act  jointly  with  a  Senate  committee,  which  joint  committee 
was  to  consider  the  question  of  Missouri's  admission  and  of  Mis- 
souri's present  condition.^^  Clay's  proposal  was  adopted  and  the 
House  committee  was  selected — Clay  being  chairman.  The  Senate 
concurred  in  the  proposition  on  the  24th  inst.,  and  appointed 
seven  of  its  members  to  act  with  the  House  committee. ^^  The 
joint  committee  reported  on  the  26th  and  this  report,  known 
as  the  Second  Missouri  Compromise,  was  adopted  without 
change  by  the  House  on  that  day,  by  the  Senate  on  the  28th 
inst.,  and  was  approved  by  the  President  on  March  2ndi^^  The 
full  text  of  this  compromise  report,  of  which  Clay  was  the 
author,  was  as  follows: 

Resolved,  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States 
of  America  in  Congress  assembled.  That  Missouri  shall  be  admitted  into  this 
Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States  in  all  respects  whatever,  upon 
the  fundamental  condition,  that  the  fourth  clause  of  the  twenty-sixth  section  of 
the  third  article  of  the  constitution  submitted  on  the  part  of  said  State  to  Congress 
shall  never  be  construed  to  authorize  the  passage  of  any  law,  and  that  no  law 
shall  be  passed  in  conformity  thereto,  by  which  any  citizen  of  either  of  the  States 
in  this  Union  shall  be  excluded  from  the  enjoyment  of  any  of  the  privileges  and 
immunities  to  which  such  citizen  is  entitled  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States:  Provided,  That  the  Legislature  of  the  said  State,  by  a  solemn  public  act, 
shall  declare  the  assent  of  the  said  State  to  the  said  fundamental  condition,  and 
shall  transmit  to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  on  or  before  the  fourth 
Monday  in  November  next,  an  authentic  copy  of  the  said  act;  upon  the  receipt 
whereof  the  President,  by  proclamation,  shall  announce  the  fact:  whereupon, 
and  without  any  further  proceeding  on  the  part  of  Congress,  the  admission  of  the 
said  state  into  this  Union,  shall  be  considered  as  complete." 

Writing  of  this  compromise  to  the  editors  of  the  Missouri 
Intelligencer  and  the  St.  Louis  Enquirer,  Barton  said: 


>i  Annals,  p.  35111. 

"  Ibid.,  p.  364. 

"  Ibid.,   p.    1219. 

»<  Ibid.,  p.  382. 

**  Ibid.,  pp.  383,  388ff;  pp.  123Gflr. 

*^Stat.  at  Large,  2nd  Scss.  IG  Cong.,  Ill,  645;  Annals,  p.  1228. 


Second  Missouri  Compromise.  301 

"This  promise  in  writing  obligatory  required  of  our  General  Assembly  is 
precisely  tantamount  to  their  ofllc-ial  oaths  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  which  they  have  taken  in  obedience  to  our  state  Constitution 
....  What  power  Congress  has  to  dictate  any  condition,  however  nugatory 
and  unmeaning,  our  State  must  decide  for  itself.  I  believe,  however,  no  better 
terms  could  be  got  from  the  north;  and  if  they  do  abandon  their  free  negro  crusade, 
they  at  the  same  time  dictate  to,  and  humiliate  Missouri;  which,  after  losing 
their  removed  restriction,  is  some  satisfaction  to  them."  " 


*' Mo.  IntelL,  April  16,   1821   (letter  dated  Feb.  27,   1821);  St.  Louis  Enq., 
March  31,   1821. 


CHAPTER  XL 

STATEHOOD  IN  THE  UNION. 

The  news  of  the  passage  of  the  resolution  providing  for 
the  admission  of  Missouri  was  received  by  Missourians  with 
joy.  This  joy  was,  however,  founded  mainly  not  on  the  pleasant 
anticipation  of  final  statehood  in  the  Union  within  a  few  months 
or  on  a  relief  from  suspense  regarding  what  might  have  been 
Missouri's  fate,  but  was  founded  on  the  defeat  of  the  eastern 
slavery  restrictionists.  Missouri  took  more  delight  in  seeing 
her  eastern  enemies  defeated  than  in  the  good  she  obtained 
from  her  victory.  The  latter  was  appreciated  but  the  former 
was  uppermost  in  the  minds  of  Missourians.  The  editor  of 
the  St.  Louis  Enquirer  on  May  26th  made  the  following  com- 
ment in  this  connection: 

"The  news  of  the  admission  of  the  State  was  received  in  this  place  with 
evident  manifestations  of  pleasure — it  beamed  in  the  countenances  of  all,  and  was 
a  subject  of  mutual  congratulation — But  there  were  no  'boastings,'  or 'bonfires;' 
the  people  here  knew  too  well  what  was  due  to  propriety  and  their  own  dignity — 
It  was  for  the  second  triumph  of  the  Union  and  Missouri,  that  they  felt  rejoiced." 

These  people  had  for  years  been  heckled,  opposed,  and  in- 
sulted by  eastern  Congressmen  and  eastern  newspapers,  until 
mere  victory  over  the  restrictionists  was  more  desired  than  the 
fruits  of  victory.  A  most  concrete  illustration  of  this  almost 
revengeful  attitude  was  a  public  dinner  given  on  April  10th  in 
Franklin,  Missouri. 

This  dinner  was  "in  celebration  of  our  late  triumph  over 
eastern  policy  and  eastern  artifice.  We  enjoy  the  right  of  self- 
government,  and  will  be  admitted  into  the  Union  on  a  condition 
perfectly  nugatory  and  foolish."  ^  A  large  number  of  toasts 
were  given  of  which  the  following  were  representative: 

"The  27th  day  of  February — Missouri  will  hail  it  as  the  day  of  her  deliverance 
from  artful  and  ambitious  politicians." 

"The  Senate  of  the  United  States — Our  buckler  in  the  late  conflict." 
"The  House  of  Representatives — A  majority  virtuous." 


>  Mo.  Intell.,  April   IG.   1821. 


(302) 


Statehood  in  the  Union.  303 

"The  Constitution  of  the  United  States — The  meaning  cannot  be  perverted 
to  answer  the  purpose  of  eastern  politicians,  or  make  free  negroes  citizens  of 
Missouri." 

"The  Constitution  of  Missouri — Formed  by  men  understanding  their  powers, 
it  conflicts  with  no  superior  instrument,  and  will  forever  defy  Eastern  acuteness." 

Accompanying  this  spirit  of  jubilance  over  the  defeat  of 
the  east  was  a  feeling  of  contempt  and  hatred  of  the  restriction- 
ists  in  Congress.  This  found  expression  in  newspaper  articles 
and  in  public  speeches.  One  of  the  most  striking  of  these  was 
a  poem  which  appeared  in  the  editorial  column  of  the  St.  Charles 
Missotirian  of  May  9th.  The  following  stanzas  were  selected 
from  this  piece: 

"A  Song  for  the  Special  Use  of  Certain  Members  of  Congress. 

Tune — "Paddy's  Wedding." 

How  shrewd  are  we,  who  plainly  see, 
And  if  we  don't  we  "guess"  it  O, 
The  way  to  shine  and  pockets  line. 
And  all  men  will  confess  it  O; 
A  negro  slave  we  scorned  to  have. 
So  sold  them  for  the  dollars  O; 
Nutmegs  of  wood  are  just  as  good 
If — no  detection  follows  O. 
Tid  re  i,  &c. 

Then  let's  join  in  the  dance,  we'll  caper 

&  prance 
With  Luce  and  with  Judy  quite  cheerly  O, 
The  African  fair  though  duskish  they  are 
We  cannot  but  cherish  sincerely  O. 
Our  citizens  rights  exertion  invites 
We'll  "aid  and  assist  and  abet  them"  O. 
Then  buzza  for  the  scheme!  their  rights 

we'll  redeem 
Or  go  to  the  devil  to  get  them  O 
Tid  re  i,  &c. 

COMUS." 

There  is  evidence  to  believe  that  the  slavery  restriction- 
ists  in  Missouri  aided  the  eastern  and  northern  members  of 
Congress.  At  least  this  report  appeared  in  the  National  In- 
telligencer of  March  10th  and  in  the  St.  Louis  Enquirer  of  April 
4th.     The  former  contained  the  following  article: 

"We  believe,  indeed,  that  such  as  opposed  the  admission  of  Missouri,  in  order 
to  compel  her,  by  refusing  to  admit  her  on  any  other  terms,  to  introduce  into  her 
constitution  a  clause  inhibiting  slavery,  labored  under  the  disadvantage  of  in- 
correct information,  and  of  a  misapprehension  of  the  effect  of  the  course  which  they 
proposed.  The  private  letters  from  Missouri  ought  not  so  much  to  have  been 
relied  on  as  the  unanimous  declaration  of  her  authorized  agents." 


304  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

And  this  caused  the  following  comment  in  the  Enquirer: 

"For  sixteen  years  a  system  of  secret  communication  has  been  carried  on 
from  this  place  to  the  seat  of  the  general  government.  It  has  attacked  the  char- 
acters of  individuals,  the  rights  of  property,  and  the  best  interests  of  the  country. 
Nothing  virtuous,  honorable,  just,  or  advantageous  to  the  country  could  escape 
it,  and  every  department  of  the  general  government  was  made  a  reservoir  of  lies 
and  poison. — Finally,  this  indefatigable  agent  of  mischief  has  attacked  the  sov- 
ereignty of  the  state  of  Missouri,  and  has  undertaken  to  array  a  majority  of  con- 
gress against  her  rights  by  imposing  on  the  members  from  the  non-slaveholding 
states  the  most  unparalleled  falsehoods.  Secret  communications  have  been  made 
to  eflfect  this  object,  stating  that  the  Restrictionists  were  getting  into  power  in 
Missouri,  and  that  the  majority  of  the  people  were  now  in  their  favor.  Various 
information  has  given  intelligence  of  their  infernal  work,  and  there  rests  not  a 
doubt  but  that  Missouri  is  largely  indebted  to  it  for  all  the  humiliation  to  which 
she  has  been  subjected  this  winter. 

A  MISSOURIAN." 

To  Missourians  the  hero  of  the  second  Missouri  Com- 
promise and  of  Missouri's  triumph  over  the  eastern  restric- 
tionists was  Henry  Clay.  To  him  they  justly  gave  the  credit 
of  obtaining  the  passage  of  the  admission  act.  His  name  and 
deeds  were  toasted  and  lauded  in  speech  and  verse  throughout 
the  State. 

Closely  related  to  the  joy  of  Missourians  in  their  triumph 
over  the  East  was  their  appreciation  of  the  emptiness  of  the 
fundamental  solemn-public-act  condition  contained  in  the 
Missouri  resolution  of  Congress.  As  one  Missouri  writer 
succinctly  expressed  himself:  "the  result  of  the  act  of  Congress 
appears  to  be  absurd  in  the  extreme.  Our  legislature  is  called 
upon  to  annihilate  a  particular  clause  in  our  constitution,  or 
pass  a  law  that  will  be  tantamount  to  such  annihilation  .... 
They  [Congress]  require  the  legislature  to  do  that  which,  under 
the  constitution,  they  have  not  the  right  to  exercise."  ^  The 
same  writer  continued:  "the  legislature  may  enact  a  law  de- 
claring no  law  passed  in  conformity  to  the  clause  aforesaid  [the 
free  negro  and  mulatto  clause]  in  the  state  constitution  shall 
be  binding;  but  ....  It  would  be  a  mere  legislative  act,  sub- 
ject to  be  repealed  by  the  next  succeeding  legislature  ....  [after 
the  President  has  admitted  Missouri]  The  State  will  then  be  a 
member  of  the  Union — the  legislature  of  the  succeeding  session 
may  repeal  the  law  so  enacted  under  the  requisition  of  Congress, 
and  we  may  be  precisely  in  the  same  situation  as  it  we  had  been 


«  Mo.  Gaz.,  April  4,  1821,  article  by  "Philo." 


Statehood  in  the  Union.  305 

admitted  without  so  much  ceremony  ....  Upon  the  whole, 
I  conclude,  that  the  friends  of  Missouri,  have  triumphed  over 
their  opponents — and  they  must  have  seen  and  known  the  full 
bearing  of  the  law  that  was  passed,  and  knew  that  we  should 
be  admitted  without,  in  fact,  any  restriction,  though  seemingly 
otherwise."  ^  The  editor  of  the  St.  Louis  Enquirer  commented 
in  a  similar  strain  on  the  emptiness  of  the  solemn-public-act 
condition:  "Now  if  there  be  anything  in  the  constitution  of 
Missouri  incompatible  with  the  rights  of  citizens  in  other  states, 
how  can  the  legislature  expunge  the  inconsistency,  or  sit  in 
judgment  on  its  constitutionality?  ....  The  leaders  of  the 
north  will  now  leave  Washington  with  the  same  feelings  which 
the  disappointed  ambassadors  of  the  Hartford  Convention 
experienced  some  five  or  six  years  ago."  ^ 

The  inhabitants  of  Missouri  were  not  only  pleased  with 
their  triumph  over  the  East  and  with  the  ridiculousness  of  the 
solemn-public-act  condition,  but  above  all  they  took  pride  in 
their  having  maintained  a  consistent  position  of  independent 
statehood  since  the  adoption  of  the  Missouri  constitution  of 
1820  and  the  organization  of  the  State  government  in  that  year. 
This  position  had  been  repeatedly  attacked  in  Congress  but 
was  never  given  up  by  Missouri  and  her  representatives.  Public 
opinion  in  Missouri  was  unanimous  on  the  point  that  Missouri 
was  a  state,  had  a  state  constitution  and  state  government, 
could  not  become  a  territory  unless  force  was  used,  and  that 
whether  admitted  or  not  by  Congress  she  would  continue  to 
exercise  all  the  functions  of  a  state  except  those  national  duties 
and  privileges  that  centered  in  Washington.  Not  once  during 
the  winter  of  1820-21  were  these  principles  compromised  on  the 
part  of  Missouri  and  care  was  taken  that  no  act  of  her  repre- 
sentatives could  be  interpreted  even  by  implication  as  derogatory 
to  these  principles.  That  this  attitude  finally  was  impliedly 
endorsed  by  Congress  was  a  source  of  much  satisfaction  to 
Missourians. 


'Ibid.,  April  18.  1821;  cf..  Ibid.,  March  28,  1821.  an  editorial. 

«  March  24,  1821.     See  also  editorial  in  St.  Charles  Missourian,  Apr.  11.  1821. 


M  S — 20 


306  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood, 

The  editor  of  the  St.  Louis  Enquirer  on  April  28,  1821, 
summarized  conditions  relating  to  these  contentions  as  fol- 
lows: 

"The  first  thing  that  strikes  us  in  the  resolution  is,  that  it  now  admits 
by  fair,  direct  and  necessary  implication,  that  Missouri  is  a  sovereign  and  in- 
dependent state.  It  admits  this  by  treating  with  the  legislature  of  the  state, 
as  now  organized  under  the  state  constitution,  and  admitting  its  authority  to 
enter  into  a  compact  with  the  general  government  as  fully  as  any  other  state 
could  do. 

The  act  to  be  done  by  Missouri  has  nothing  in  it  derogatory  to  her  state 
sovereignty.  She  is  not  required  to  repeal,  expunge,  or  alter  any  part  of  her 
constitution.  She  is  only  requested  so  to  construe  her  present  constitution  as 
not  to  impair  the  rights  of  any  citizen  of  any  one  of  the  states 

The  deferred  admission  is  unpleasant  to  our  feelings;  but  really,  we  see  no 
practical  inconvenience  resulting  from  it.  The  state  authorities  are  in  full  opera- 
tion; all  their  acts  are  valid;  ....  We  say  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  about 
the  validity  of  all  the  acts  of  the  State  authorities;  and  our  position  is  maintained 
by  principle,  and  by  practice,  and  by  the  admission  of  Congress. — 

1.  By  principle:  because  Missouri  having  had  the  consent  of  Congress  to 
become  a  state  government  at  a  certain  time  and  place,  and  having  framed  it 
in  the  way  consented  to,  became,  by  that  act,  a  sovereign  state,  and  needs  no 
second  consent  of  congress  upon  the  same  point. — 

2.  By  practice:  because  almost  every  new  state  which  has  been  admitted 
into  the  Union,  put  their  state  authorities,  executive,  legislative  and  judicial, 
into  operation  before  the  last  form  of  admission  was  gone  through;  all  the  acts 
done  by  them  in  such  intervals  have  been  held  valid — and  if  valid  for  an  interval 
of  one  or  two  months,  they  are  equally  so  for  as  many,  or  any  number  of  years. 

3.  By  the  admission  of  Congress:  because  in  the  very  resolution,  now  under 
examination,  the  sovereign,  independent,  and  federal  character  of  ISIissouri  is 
recognized  by  the  fact  of  treating  with  her  in  those  characters. 

We  perceive  some  error,  as  we  believe,  in  the  understanding  of  some  of  our 
citizens  about  this  resolution;  they  speak  of  it  as  the  act  of  our  enemies,  as  a 
thing  imposed  upon  us  by  the  enemies  of  Missouri.  Such  is  not  the  fact.  The 
resolution  was  not  the  work  of  the  enemies  of  Missouri;  they  opposed  it,  and  would 
rejoice  to  see  it  opposed  here:  but  it  is  the  work  of  the  devoted  friends  of  Mis- 
souri and  of  the  Union,  brought  forward  by  the  zeal  and  abilities  of  Henry  Clay, 
and  supported  in  one  house  or  the  other  by  one  or  more  members  of  every  state 
in  the  Union,  except  Ohio." 

One  of  the  most  interesting  side-lights  on  the  struggle  in 
Congress  leading  up  to  the  Second  Missouri  Compromise  re- 
lated to  the  status  of  Missouri's  senators  and  representatives 
elected  to  Congress  in  1820.  This  was  also  an  important  ques- 
tion to  Missourians  of  that  day.  When  Senators  Barton  and 
Benton,  of  Missouri,  arrived  in  Washington  in  November, 
1820,  they  were  either  denied  their  seats  in  the  Senate  or  policy 
dictated  their  not  demanding  seats.  Scott,  however,  whose 
term  as  Territorial  Delegate  from  Missouri  had  not  expired  if 
Missouri  was  still  a  Territory  and  who  had  also  been  elected 
in  1820  as  Congressman  from  Missouri  State,  took  his  seat  in 


Statehood  in  the  Union.  307 

the  House,  presented  the  Missouri  constitution  to  that  body, 
and  made  several  motions.  On  having  been  asked  in  what 
capacity  he  so  acted,  Scott  repHed  "as  a  member  from  the  state 
of  Missouri."  ^  PoHcy,  however,  dictated  his  withdrawal  from 
his  seat.  Sometime  toward  the  end  of  the  session,  probably 
after  the  passage  of  the  Missouri  resolution.  Barton,  Benton 
and  Scott,  all  took  their  seats  in  Congress  as  Senators  and 
Representatives  from  the  State  of  Missouri.^  Scott  was  at- 
tacked in  Missouri  for  having  acted  as  a  delegate  of  the  Terri- 
tory of  Missouri.  The  editor  of  the  St.  Louis  Enquirer  replied 
to  this  charge  with  warmth.'^ 

Scott  also  replied  on  May  5th,  in  a  letter  dated  "State  of 
Missouri,  Ste.  Genevieve,  April  12,  1821:" 

Sir: —  ....  I  never  did  act  as  delegate,  during  the  late  session  of  congress. 
I  took  my  seat  in  no  other  capacity  than  as  the  representative  from  the  state  of 
Missouri.  I  had  seen  other  members  from  new  states  allowed  that  privilege, 
before  the  admission  of  their  state  into  the  Union I  believed  the  repre- 
sentative from  the  state  of  Missouri  entitled  to  the  same  privilege,  and  unhes- 
itatingly took  my  seat,  presented  the  constitution  of  the  state,  and  ....  On 
being  afterwards  asked,  by  what  right  I  made  these  motions,  and  in  what  capacity 
I  acted?  I  answered,  as  a  member  from  the  state  of  Missouri.  My  right  to  act 
in  that  capacity  being  then,  for  the  first  time,  doubted  by  some,  and  not  wishing 
prematurely  to  bring  up  the  question  of  our  state  rights,  or  embarrass  our  friends 
....  I  instantly  withdrew  from  my  seat ;  .  .  .  .  The  fact  that  I  maintained  the 
ground  that  I  was  a  member  from  the  state,  and  not  a  delegate,  is  fiu-ther  proven 
in  this,  that  congress  made  a  special  appropriation  for  the  payment  of  the  sen- 
ators and  representative  from  Missouri,  which  was  quite  unnecessary  as  to  me, 
if  I  had  acted  as  delegate,  which  I  had  the  right  to  do  if  I  had  chosen  so  far  to 
compromit  the  independence  and  rights  of  the  state — for  I  had  one  session  to 
serve  as  delegate  under  my  former  election. 

My  having  been  entered  on  the  journals  of  congress  as  the  delegate  from  the 
territory,  was  not  my  act,  but  the  act  of  the  officer,  who  seeing  me  in  my  place, 
and  not  having  official  knowledge  of  Missouri  as  a  state,  (the  constitution  not 
having  been  then  presented,)  entered  me  down  as  the  delegate; — but  in  all  the 
calls  from  the  chair  ....  for  the  delegate  from  Missouri,  ....  I  never  once 
answered. 

It  is  true  that  I  did  present  the  constitution  of  the  state  of  Missouri,  and  move 
the  reference  of  our  land  law;  these  were  the  only  two  acts  I  did  in  the  house 
during  the  session,  and  my  reasons  for  so  doing  were  these — first,  I  believed  I 
had  the  right  so  to  do,  as  a  member;  and  secondly,  because  I  could  not  get  those 
things  done  by  others.  But  I  am  conscious  that  no  portion  of  my  conduct  has 
ever  authorized  even  an  inference  that  I  considered  or  represented  Missouri  as 
a  territory ;  nor  could  any  act  of  mine  bear  a  construction  prejudicial  to  the  state 
pretensions  or  the  state  rights  of  Missouri. 

With  much  respect. 

your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN   SCOTT." 


^  St.  Louis  Enq.,  May  5,  1821,  letter  of  Scott  dated  April  12,  1821. 
*  St.  Louis  Enq.,  March  24,  1821.     The  Annals  were  silent  on  this. 
'  April  28,    1821. 


308  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

Although  Barton,  Benton  and  Scott  did  not  sit  in  this 
session  of  Congress  until  toward  the  close,  they  received  the 
same  pay  for  their  past  year's  services  that  was  allowed  other 
Congressmen.  In  the  general  appropriation  bill  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  government,  approved  March  3,  1821,  special  men- 
tion was  made  on  this  point  as  follows:  "For  the  compensation 
of  the  senators  and  representatives  elected  by  Missouri,  six 
thousand  dollars."  ^  The  other  members  of  Congress  were 
provided  for  in  a  lump  appropriation  clause.  Thus  while  Mis- 
souri was  not  officially  regarded  by  Congress  as  a  State,  was  not 
admitted  into  the  Union  until  August,  1821,  and  was  not  al- 
lowed representatives  in  Congress  until  March,  1821,  still  her 
two  senators  and  one  representative  drew  salary  from  the 
United  States  government  through  act  of  Congress  for  over  a 
year  prior  to  August,  1821,  i.  e.  practically  from  the  passage 
of  the  Enabling  Act  in  1820. 

Although  the  Missouri  admission  act  was  received  with 
general  favor  in  the  State,  no  haste  was  advocated  except  in 
St.  Charles  and  St.  Louis  counties  in  complying  with  the  solemn- 
public-act  condition.^  In  these  two  counties,  however,  a  demand 
was  made  for  an  extra  session  of  the  general  assembly  and  in 
St.  Charles  county  a  petition  was  circulated  by  members  of  the 
legislature  requesting  the  governor  to  call  such  a  session  at  an 
early  date.  Rumors  circulated  that  the  question  of  a  state 
bank  was  back  of  this  demand  for  immediate  statehood  in  the 
Union.  An  article  appeared  in  the  St.  Charles  Missourian  over 
the  penname  "A  Constituent"  opposing  the  calling  of  an  extra 
session  in  1821,  stating  that  there  was  no  urgent  need  for  such 
a  session,  and  declaring  that  the  expense  of  one,  which  would 
reach  ten  thousand  dollars,  could  ill  be  borne  at  that  time.^® 
However,  despite  the  absence  of  any  general  demand  for  an 
extra  session  and  the  depleted  condition  of  the  State  treasury, 
Governor  McNair  issued  the  following  proclamation: 


«  Stat,  at  Large,  III.  628. 

"Mo.  Intell.,  May  7,  1821,  editorial. 

•o  Mo.  Intell.,  May  21,  1821,  from  the  St.  Charles  Mo. 


Statehood  in  the  Union.  309 

"By  The  Governor  of  The  State  of  Missouri 
A  PROCLAMATION. 

Whereas,  great  and  weighty  matters,  claiming  the  consideration  of  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  State  of  Missouri,  form  an  extraordinary  occasion  for  convening 
them:  I  DO.  by  these  presents,  appoint.  Monday  the  fourth  day  of  June  next, 
for  their  meeting  at  the  town  of  St.  Charles,  the  temporary  seat  of  government 
for  this  state:  Hereby  requiring  the  respective  Senators  and  Representatives 
then  and  there  to  assemble  in  General  Assembly,  in  order  to  receive  such  com- 
munications as  shall  then  be  made  to  them,  and  to  consult  and  determine  on  such 
measures  as  in  their  wisdom  may  be  deemed  meet  for  the  welfare  of  the  state. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  affixed  my  private  seal,  (there  being 
no  seal  of  state  yet  provided.)  Given  xmder  my  hand  at  St.  Charles,  the  twentieth 
day  of  April,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  twenty- 
one,  and  of  the  independence  of  the  state  of  Missouri  the  first. 

A.  M'Nair 
By  the  Governor. 

Joshua    Barton, 

Secretary  of  State."  >» 

This  proclamation  met  with  a  poor  reception  in  the  Boone's 
Lick  country.  On  the  day  the  proclamation  was  printed  in 
the  Missouri  Intelligencer  an  editorial  appeared  in  that  paper 
criticizing  the  calling  of  an  extra  session.  The  editor  stated  that 
he  was  not  informed  what  the  ''great  and  weighty  matters" 
were  that  necessitated  such  quick  legislation;  that  the  first 
intimation  and  the  actual  receipt  of  the  proclamation  at  Franklin, 
had  been  almost  simultaneous;  that  no  petitions  in  Howard  or 
the  surrounding  counties  had  been  circulated;  and  that  as  far 
as  he  could  learn,  no  demand  had  been  made  for  such  a  session 
except  in  St.  Charles  and  St.  Louis.  Public  meetings  held  in 
western  Missouri  to  consider  this  question  sustained  the  general 
attitude  taken  by  the  editor  of  the  Intelligencer .  A  large 
gathering  of  this  kind,  which  met  at  Franklin,  adopted  the 
following  resolutions:  first,  that  a  special  session  was  needed 
but  that  it  should  have  been  called  at  a  time  so  that  it  would 
have  merged  with  the  regular  fall  session;  second,  that  laws 
interfering  with  the  collection  of  debts,  etc.,  were  unreasonable; 
third,  that  the  establishment  of  a  state  bank  then  was  opposed; 
fourth,  that  the  general  assembly  should  consider  at  the  special 
session  only  the  admission  act  of  Congress;  and  fifth,  that  these 
resolutions  be  sent  to  the  representatives  of  Howard  and  Cooper 
counties  and  to  the  governor.  In  a  comment  either  by  the 
reporter  or  editor  it  was  stated  that  these  resolutions  "are  the 


"  Mo.  IntelL,  May  7,  1821. 


310  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

sentiments  of  nine  tenths  of  the  electors  of  counties  west  of 
Cedar  and  the  river  Osage."  ^^  Notices  of  other  meetings  are 
met  with  and  although  the  people  of  Missouri  appear  to  have 
favored  complying  with  the  condition  of  Congress,  there  was  a 
widespread  feeling  that  there  was  plenty  of  time  to  do  this. 
There  was  also  a  fear  of  the  establishment  of  a  state  bank. 
Combined  with  this  was  an  unwillingness  on  the  part  of  many 
to  burden  the  almost  empty  treasury  with  the  expense  of  an 
extra  sitting  of  the  legislature.  Notwithstanding  these  out- 
spoken criticisms  of  the  purpose  of  Governor  McNair's  proc- 
lamation, the  prospect  of  early  admission  into  the  Union  was 
contemplated  with  much  pleasure  by  the  general  body  of 
citizens. ^^ 

In  pursuance  of  the  proclamation  the  general  assembly 
convened  at  St.  Charles  on  June  4th,  and  a  long  message  was 
delivered  by  Governor  McNair.^^  In  speaking  of  the  act  of 
Congress,  he  said:  *'I  deem  it  proper  to  recommend  the  im- 
mediate consideration  of  that  subject,  and  the  passage  of  such 
legislative  act  as  is  required  by  the  resolution ;  carefully  avoiding 
at  the  same  time,  everything  that  might  impair  our  political 
rights,  or  draw  in  question  the  dignity  and  independent  char- 
acter of  the  state  ....  Our  unsettled  political  condition  has  al- 
ready prevented  thousands  from  making  our  country  their  home." 
He  called  attention  to  the  financial  depression  of  the  State 
and  recommended  measures  be  considered  to  relieve  it.  He 
stated  that  his  position  was  well  known  on  the  question  of 
amendments  to  the  constitution  and  urged  action  on  this 
subject  at  the  special  session.  He  also  referred  to  the  deficit 
in  the  State's  revenue  and  suggested  that  new  revenue  measures 
be  passed  and  that  retrenchment  in  government  expenses  be 
followed,  and  for  this  and  other  reasons  that  the  session  be 
short. 


^*  Mo.  Intell.,  May  21,  1821.     The  meeting  was  held  on  May  19th. 
I'  Mo.  Intell.,  May  21,  28,  1821. 

>*  Mo.  Intell.,  June  18,  1821.     Henry  S.  Geyer  of  St.  Louis  was  elected  speaker 
on  the  resignation  of  Mr.  Caldwell. 


TEMPORARY  CAPITOL  OF  THK  STATK  OF  MISSOURI  AT  S  P.  CHAR!.i:S. 
In  use  from   1821  to  1826.      Courtesy  of  Hon.  Cornelius  Roach. 


72834-310 


Statehood  in  the  Ufiion.  311 

The  resolution  of  Congress  was  at  once  referred  to  a  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  House  on  the  affairs  of  the  State. ^^  Mr. 
Ball  submitted  sundry  resolutions  expressive  of  the  sense  of 
the  Committee  on  the  subject,  and  Messrs.  Geyer,  Heath  and 
Smith  severally  submitted  bills  for  the  same  purpose.  After 
considerable  debate  Mr.  Ball's  resolutions  were  changed  into 
a  report.  On  motion  of  Mr.  Bates  the  several  propositions 
were  referred  to  a  select  committee  consisting  of  Bates,  Ball, 
Rutter,  Waters  of  Ste.  Genevieve,  and  Alcorn.  This  com- 
mittee reported  the  Ball  report  together  with  the  bill  submitted 
by  Geyer.  The  report  was  a  long  one  containing  over  twenty- 
two  hundred  words.  In  it  were  reviewed  the  history  of  the 
objectionable  clause  in  Missouri's  constitution  and  of  the 
resolution  of  Congress.  The  report  closed  with  a  recommenda- 
tion to  the  general  assembly  to  pass  ''A  Solemn  Public  Act," 
which  act  as  thus  reported  was  practically  identical  with  the 
one  finally  adopted. ^^ 

The  preamble  to  this  act  and  the  act  itself  were  debated 
in  the  House,  and  opposition  developed  regarding  both.  Heath 
and  Smith  with  others  attempted  to  strike  out  the  preamble. 
McGirk  was  opposed  to  acceding  to  the  condition  imposed  by 
Congress.  The  main  supporters  of  the  preamble  and  the  bill 
were  Green,  Ball,  Alcorn,  Young  and  Geyer.  In  the  course  of 
the  debate,  Geyer  "stated  a  fact  not  generally  known — That 
the  clause  mentioned  in  the  Resolution  of  Congress  is  not  the 
one  concerning  free  negroes  and  mulattoes.  There  are  but 
three  principle  clauses  in  the  twenty-sixth  section  of  the  third 
article,  and  the  only  clause  distinguished  as  a  fourth — is  the 
last  subordinate  branch  of  the  second  principal  clause  and 
provides  that  the  General  Assembly  shall  have  power,  to  permit 
the  owners  of  slaves  to  emancipate  them  saving  the  rights  of 
Creditors,  where  the  persons  so  emancipating  will  give  security 
that  the  slave  so  emancipated  will  not  become  a  public  charge. — 
But  counting  the  clauses  of  the  twenty-sixth  section  without 
reference   to    the   numbers    thereto   attached    and    the    fourth 


1'  Mo.  Intell.,  June  18,  1821.  We  have  been  unable  to  obtain  the  journal 
of  this  session.  Our  information  has  been  taken  from  the  accounts  of  proceed- 
ings published  in  the  various  newspapers  of  the  State. 

i«  See  Appendix  IV. 


312  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

clause,  will  be  that  which  gives  the  General  Assembly  power 
To  prohibit  the  introduction  of  any  slave  for  the  purpose  of 
speculation,  or  as  an  article  of  trade  or  merchandise."  The 
bill  and  preamble  were  then  agreed  to  by  a  large  majority  and 
reported  from  the  committee  of  the  whole  without  amendment.^' 
In  this  form  it  passed  the  House  and  was  sent  to  the  Senate. 

In  the  latter  chamber  opposition  developed  regarding  the 
phraseology  of  the  preamble  and  several  clauses  were  stricken 
out,  which,  however,  were  not  acceded  to  by  the  representatives 
in  the  lower  chamber.  A  joint  conference  committee  was  then 
appointed  by  the  two  houses  to  confer  on  the  subject.  This 
committee  succeeded  in  reaching  an  agreement.  Their  rec- 
ommended change  in  the  original  House  bill  was  unimportant 
and  their  report  was  accepted  by  both  houses.  The  vote  in 
the  House  on  accepting  this  report  was  forty  to  two.  Heath  and 
McGirk  opposing.  The  vote  on  the  final  passage  of  the  bill 
in  the  House  was  thirty-six  to  six.  One  of  the  nays,  McGirk, 
entered  the  following  protest:  *'I  do  most  solemnly  protest 
against  any  constitutional  right  which  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  had  to  pass  their  resolution,  approved  March 
2,  1821,  restricting  the  admission  of  this  free,  sovereign,  and 
independent  state  into  the  federal  Union,  and  of  requiring  of 
the  State  of  Missouri,  the  condition  in  said  restriction,  con- 
tained as  the  price  of  her  admission  into  the  Union.  Also 
against  any  constitutional  right  which  the  Legislature  of  this 
State  had  to  pass  their  most  Solemn  Public  Act,  declaring  the 
assent  of  this  State  to  the  fundamental  condition  in  the  said 
resolution  of  Congress. "^^  The  Solemn  Public  Act  was  ap- 
proved by  Governor  McNair  on  June  26,  1821.^^  Missouri  had 
taken  her  last  step,  save  one,  toward  admission  into  the  Union. 

Two  interesting  and  important  questions  arise  in  considering 
the  resolution  of  Congress  of  March  2,  1821,  and  the  solemn 
public  act  of  Missouri  of  June  28,  1821.     First,  how  did  Congress 


>'  Mo.  Gaz.,  June  13,  1821;  Jackson  Indep.  Patriot,  June  30,  1821. 

>«  From  all  the  sources  available,  it  has  been  impossible  for  us  to  determine 
the  final  vote  on  this  bill  in  the  Senate. 

»•  Mo.  session  laws,  special  1821,  pp.  9-11;  Mo.  Intell.,  July  9,  1821,  regarding 
McGirk's  protest;  Jackson  Indep.  Patriot,  July  7,  1821,  on  the  voting;  St.  Louis 
Enq.,  June  23,  30,  on  the  disagreement  of  the  two  houses. 


Statehood  in  the  Union,  313 

seemingly  err  in  requiring  the  Missouri  legislature  to  promise 
never  to  enforce  a  certain  clause  in  Missouri's  constitution 
when  Congress  objected  to  an  entirely  different  clause:  and  how 
did  this  apparent  error  remain  undiscovered  at  that  time  and 
seemingly  was  repeated  by  the  Missouri  general  assembly? 
Second,  were  the  resolution  and  the  public  act  binding  on  Mis- 
souri in  law  and  practice?  The  former  will  be  considered 
first. 

The  resolution  of  Congress  of  March  2,  1821,  in  effect 
imposed  on  Missouri  as  the  price  of  admission,  a  "fundamental 
condition."  This  "fundamental  condition"  stated:  "that  the 
fourth  clause  of  the  twenty-sixth  section  of  the  third  article  of 
the  constitution  submitted  on  the  part  of  said  State  to  Con- 
gress, shall  never  be  construed  to  authorize  the  passage  of  any 
law,  and  that  no  law  shall  be  passed  in  conformity  thereto,  by 
which  any  citizen  of  the  States  in  this  Union,  shall  be  excluded 
from  the  enjoyment  of  any  of  the  privileges  and  immunities 
to  which  such  citizen  is  entitled  under  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States."  The  resolution  continued:  ''Provided,  that 
the  Legislature  of  said  State,  by  a  solemn  public  act,  shall 
declare  the  assent  of  the  said  State  to  the  said  fundamental 
condition"  etc. 

According  to  the  constitution  of  Missouri  as  printed  in  the 
Missouri  revised  statutes  of  1825,  1835,  1845,  1855,  and  also  as 
first  printed  in  St.  Louis  in  1820  by  /.  N.  Henry  ayid  Company, 
the  fourth  clause  of  the  twenty-sixth  section  of  the  third  article 
was  not  the  free  negro  and  mulatto  clause,  which  was  the  ob- 
jectionable clause  to  Congress.  One  writer  was  thus  led  to 
comment  on  this  seeming  blindness  or  error  of  Congress  as 
follows:  "And,  curiously  enough,  the  articles  of  the  Constitu- 
tion [the  Missouri  constitution  of  1820]  enumerated  in  the  act 
of  Congress  and  in  the  resolution  of  the  Legislature  cannot  by 
any  human  ingenuity  be  identified  with  the  clauses  excluding 
free  negroes."  ^o  Professor  Viles  was  not,  however,  the  first 
to  notice  this  apparent  error.  The  Missouri  historian  and 
editor,  Lucien  Carr,  writing  in  1900,  stated  that  the  fourth 
clause  of  the  twenty-sixth  section  of  the  third  article  was  really 


">  Viles,  The  Story  of  the  State,  in  The  State  of  Missouri,  p.  20. 


314  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

the  clause  that  empowered  the  legislature  to  permit  owners  of 
slaves  to  emancipate  them,  and  hence  could  not  possibly  bear 
the  construction  put  upon  it.^^  It  remained  for  Professor  Hodder 
to  examine  in  a  scholarly  and  scientific  manner  this  widely  cir- 
culated story.  He  was  not  content  with  perusing  the  revised 
statutes  of  Missouri  but  went  to  the  Senate  and  House  Documents 
of  the  second  session  of  the  sixteenth  Congress,  1820-1821.22 
In  these  documents,  printed  in  Washington,  D.  C,  he  found 
that  the  Missouri  constitution  of  1820  as  therein  set  forth  con- 
veniently lent  itself  to  the  construction  placed  upon  it  by 
Congress.  He  found  that  the  free  negro  and  mulatto  and 
mulatto  clause  was  the  fourth  indentation  in  the  the  margin  of 
section  twenty-six  of  article  three,  while  as  later  printed  this  free 
negro  clause  was  the  first  clause  under  the  third  subdivision  of 
section  twenty-six  of  article  three. ^^ 

Even  more  conclusive  proof  of  the  accuracy  of  the  designa- 
tion of  the  free  negro  clause  by  Congress  is  found  in  the  Missouri 
constitution  of  1820  as  printed  in  Washington,  1820,  by  the 
United  States  Government  printers — Gales  and  Seaton.  This 
latter  pamphlet,  an  original  copy  of  which  is  now  in  The  State 
Historical  Society  of  Missouri,  was  the  one  used  by  the  members 
of  Congress  during  the  1820-1821  session.  In  it  the  free  negro 
clause  is  the  fourth  indentation  in  the  margin  of  section  twenty- 
six  of  article  three  of  the  Missouri  constitution.  The  apparent 
error  of  Congress  becomes  an  accurate  statement  of  the  will 
and  intention  of  that  body.  The  surprising  part  of  the  whole 
affair  is  not,  Why  did  Congress  fail  to  notice  its  error  (?)!  but 
is.  Why  did  it  take  nearly  nine  decades  to  discover  that  Congress 
had  accurately  stated  what  that  body  had  intended  to  state! 

Although  Congress  had  accurately  designated  the  free 
negro  and  mulatto  clause  according  to  the  Washington  edition 
of  the  Missouri  constitution,  such  designation  was  not  appli- 
cable to  the  St.  Louis  edition  or  to  the  Missouri  newspaper 
reprints  of  that  document.^"*     It  seems  strange  that  the  people 


"  Carr,  An  Error  in  Resol.  of  Cong.  Admitting  Mo.  into  the  Union,  p.  7,  re- 
printed from  the  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Proceed.,  (2nd  ser.  vol.  XIII)  Feb.  1900. 
"  Senate  Doc.  1  and  House  Doc.  2. 

"  Hodder.  Side  Lights  on  Mo.  Comp.,  in  Mo.  Hist.  Review,  V.  148f. 
««  Cf.,  Mo.  const,  as  printed  in  Mo.  IntelL.  July  22.  1820. 


Statehood  in  the  Union.  315 

of  Missouri  did  not  notice  this  latter  discrepancy  especially  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  the  local  newspapers  had  printed  in  full 
the  Missouri  constitution,  the  proceedings  of  Congress  on  the 
Missouri  question;  the  report  of  the  select  committee  of  Con- 
gress, and  the  resolution  of  March  2,  1821.  However,  in  no 
article,  letter  or  editorial,  that  we  have  read,  did  there  appear 
the  slightest  intimation  of  such  an  error  before  June  ISth.^^ 
Until  evidence  to  the  contrary  has  been  produced,  we  assert 
that  all  indirect  proof  points  to  the  ignorance  of  the  people 
of  Missouri  regarding  this  error  prior  to  June,  1821.  Although 
this  ignorance  or  absence  of  observation  of  Missourians  seems 
strange,  it  is  by  no  means  inexcusable.  The  newspaper  editions 
of  the  constitution  had  appeared  nearly  a  year  before  and  by 
1821  were  probably  largely  destroyed  and  the  official  edition 
had  been  a  small  one  in  numbers:  both  editions  were  thus  in- 
accessible to  perhaps  ninety  per  cent,  of  the  inhabitants.  Fur- 
ther, it  had  become  nation-wide  information  by  March  2,  1821, 
that  Congress  objected  only  to  the  free  negro  and  mulatto 
clause  in  Missouri's  constitution.  Those  familiar  with  Missouri's 
constitution  knew  that  this  clause  was  in  the  twenty-sixth  sec- 
tion of  the  third  article.  The  resolution  of  March  2,  1821,  by 
designating  the  fourth  clause  of  this  section  as  the  objectionable 
clause  did  not,  thereby,  designate  anything  that  would  have 
stimulated  examination  by  the  average  man.  This  natural, 
though  perhaps  uncritical,  attitude  was  doubtless  unconsciously 
strengthened  by  the  logical  absence  of  any  criticism  emanating 
from  the  statesmen  at  Washington  on  this  point.  The  ques- 
tion at  issue  in  Missouri  was  not:  What  does  the  resolution  of 
Congress  object  to  in  our  constitution?  but  was:  Shall  we 
conform  to  the  resolution,  and  if  so,  are  we  bound  by  such  con- 
formity? 

When  the  resolution  of  Congress  was  considered  by  the 
general  assembly  of  Missouri,  there  was  opposition  to  passing 
the  solemn  public  act.  It  is  impossible  to  say  accurately  how 
strong  was  this  opposition.  Some  objected  to  the  wording  of 
the  solemn  public  act,  others  to  the  entire  condition  imposed 


"  All  the  newspapers  published  in   Missouri  at   this   time   were  consulted. 
There  were,  however,  a  number  of  missing  issues  in  the  various  flies. 


316  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

by  Congress.  At  this  juncture  Henry  S.  Geyer,  Speaker  of 
the  House,  later  United  States  Senator  from  Missouri,  in  a 
speech  advocating  the  passage  of  the  solemn  public  act,  pointed 
out  that  the  clause  in  the  Missouri  constitution  designated  by 
Congress  was  not  the  free  negro  and  mulatto  clause  to  which 
that  body  objected.  The  Missouri  Gazette  of  June  13,  1821, 
stated  that  this  error  was  "a  fact  not  generally  known."  Fol- 
lowing this  revelation  by  Geyer,  the  solemn  public  act  passed 
by  a  large  majority.  In  a  letter  written  May  23,  1892,  by 
Judge  Samuel  Treat,  St.  Louis,  to  Mr.  Carr,  it  was  stated  that 
the  solemn  public  act  was  drawn  up  by  Henry  S.  Geyer,  who 
had  told  him  "that  the  strange  mis-recital  was  observed  by  the 
General  Assembly  and  that  it  aided  materially  in  securing  the 
passage  of  the  act."  ^^  Professor  Hodder  did  not  believe  that 
the  legislature  was  so  informed,  but  this  position  is  proven 
absolutely  untenable  as  shown  by  the  proceedings  of  the 
legislature  as  given  in  the  Missouri  Gazette  of  June  13,  1821. 
Not  only  was  the  Missouri  general  assembly  aware  of  the  seem- 
ing error  made  by  Congress,  and  was  thereby  more  strongly 
induced  to  accede  to  the  condition  imposed  by  Congress,  but 
it  is  almost  certain  that  after  June  13,  1821,  the  people  of  Mis- 
souri were  also  aware  of  this  error.  Before  the  delivery  of 
Geyer's  speech,  however,  there  was  no  hint  given  in  any  news- 
paper that  this  error  had  been  noticed.  To  Henry  S.  Geyer 
must  be  given  the  honor  of  first  detecting  the  misstatement  by 
Congress,  of  being  the  author  of  the  solemn  public  act  of  Mis- 
souri, and  of  being  the  principal  advocate  in  the  passage  of  that 
act. 

The  binding  force  of  the  solemn  public  act  in  constitutional 
law  was  operative  only  to  the  extent  of  charging  the  President 
of  the  United  States  to  admit  Missouri  in  pursuance  of  the  resolu- 
tion of  Congress  of  March  2,  1821.  Legally  it  was  no  binding 
obligation  on  Missouri.  The  general  assembly  of  the  State  could 
amend  the  constitution  acting  only  in  a  definite  manner.  The 
condition  imposed  by  Congress  was  really  an  attempt  to  amend 
the  Missouri  constitution,  hut  curiously,  such  an  amendment 
was  to  be  made  by  ordinary  legislative  process  and  not  accord- 

»•  Carr,  Error,  etc.,  p.  8. 


Statehood  in  the  Union.  317 

ing  to  the  amending  clauses  of  the  Missouri  constitution.  The 
general  assembly  of  Missouri  acting  in  an  ordinary  manner  did 
not  have  the  power  to  amend  the  constitution,  and,  as  it  was 
the  creature  of  the  constitution,  it  could  act  only  as  that  docu- 
ment prescribed. 

The  moral  force  behind  the  solemn  public  act  was,  however, 
obvious  and  it  was  not  until  1847  that  a  Missouri  legislature 
openly  violated  it.  In  that  year  it  was  enacted:  "No  free  negro 
or  mulatto  shall,  under  any  pretext,  emigrate  to  this  State, 
from  any  other  State  or  Territory."  "  The  command  placed 
by  the  constitution  of  1820  in  section  twenty-six  of  article 
three  on  the  Missouri  general  assembly  had  finally  been  obeyed 
despite  the  resolution  of  Congress  of  March  2,  1821,  and  the 
solemn  public  act  of  Missouri  of  June  28,  1821. 

The  general  assembly  did  not  confine  its  activity  to  passing 
the  solemn  public  act  at  this  session.  A  number  of  laws  were 
enacted,  of  which  some  were  of  importance.  Acts  were  passed 
for  the  relief  of  debtors  and  creditors,  for  the  establishment  of 
loan  offices — an  expensive  experiment —  for  the  government 
of  the  militia,  for  the  regulation  of  courts  and  judicial  procedure 
and  for  the  abolishment  of  imprisonment  for  debt  in  certain 
cases,  and  for  further  providing  for  the  permanent  seat  of 
government.  A  remarkable  law  was  enacted  lowering  the 
compensation  of  the  members  of  the  general  assembly  to  three 
dollars  a  day  and  of  the  president  of  the  senate  and  the  speaker 
of  the  house  to  S4.50  a  day  each,  but  providing  for  the  same 
compensation  of  the  two  chief  clerks,  five  dollars  a  day,  as  had 
been  previously  set.-^  The  appropriation  bill  for  tVv\s  session 
carried  eight  thousand  dollars  for  the  legislators'  salaries  and 
mileage,  nine  hundred  and  five  dollars  for  printing,  $220.08^ 
for  miscellaneous  expenses,  and  three  hundred  dollars  for  the 


s'Afo.  R.  S.,  1855,  II.  1101.  Law  passed  Feb.  16.  1847.  The  statement 
made  by  Professor  Hodder  that  in  1825  the  Missouri  legislature  passed  an  act 
excluding  negroes  and  mulattoes  "from  the  State  unless  citizens  of  another  State. 
in  which  case  they  were  required  to  prove  their  citizenship  by  presenting  natural- 
ization papers,"  is  not  accurate.  Natiu-alization  papers  were  not  mentioned  in 
this  act.  (Mo.  R.  S.,  1825,  pp.  600f.)  Such  persons  were  required  to  produce 
a  certificate,  attested  by  the  seal  of  some  court  of  record  in  some  one  of  the 
United  States,  evidencing  that  he  was  a  citizen  of  such  State.  Cf.,  Mo.  R.  S., 
1835,  pp.  414flf;  Mo.  R.  S.,  1845,  pp.  755flf. 

»«  Mo.  Laws,  1st  G.  A.,  special  sess.,  pp.  20f. 


318  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

inception  of  the  loan  office  experiment — a  total  of  $9,425,085^:4."^ 
Several  special  or  private  laws  were  also  enacted.  The  resolutions 
passed  and  approved  related  to  defining  the  southern  boundary 
of  the  State,  to  the  selection  of  the  United  States  land  wherein 
to  locate  the  permanent  seat  of  government,  to  the  transmission 
by  the  Governor  of  a  copy  of  the  solemn  public  act  to  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  and  to  each  member  of  Congress,  and 
to  a  memorial  to  Congress  respecting  lead  mines. 

Ten  amendments  were  proposed  to  the  Missouri  constitu- 
tion at  this  session.  The  first  abolished  the  office  of  Chancellor 
and  gave  chancery  jurisdiction  to  the  Supreme  Court  and  th^ 
Circuit  Courts.  The  second  vested  law  and  equity  jurisdiction 
in  these  latter  courts  but  gave  the  general  assembly  power  to 
establish  courts  of  chancery.  The  third  made  the  tenure  of 
supreme  and  circuit  court  judges  elective  by  a  joint  vote  of  both 
houses  of  the  legislature.  The  fourth  gave  the  general  assembly 
power  to  fix  the  compensation  of  these  judges  and  of  the  chan- 
cellor. The  fifth  made  the  same  provision  in  regard  to  the 
governor's  salary  except  that  it  could  not  be  diminished  during 
his  term.  The  sixth  disqualified  United  States  salaried  officials, 
while  holding  office,  from  holding  a  salaried  State  office.  The 
seventh  made  the  tenure  of  the  auditor,  secretary  of  state  and 
attorney  general,  elective  by  a  joint  vote  of  both  houses  of  the 
legislature.  The  eighth  repealed  the  two  thousand  dollars 
salary  clause  for  the  governor  that  was  in  the  constitution. 
The  ninth  repealed  the  two  thousand  dollars  salary  clause  for 
judges.  The  tenth  vacated  the  higher  state  judicial  offices  at 
the  end  of  the  first  session  of  the  next  general  assembly  provided 
their  successors  had  been  elected  and  qualified  .^°  At  the  first 
session  of  the  second  general  assembly  of  Missouri  held  in 
November-December,  1822,  seven  of  these  proposed  amend- 
ments were  adopted  and  became  part  of  the  constitution.  These 
were  the  first,  second,  fourth,  sixth,  eighth,  ninth  and  tenth  of 
the  foregoing   enumerated .''' 

During  the  special  session  in  June,  1821,  an  attempt  was 
made  to  bring  up  the  question  of  a  state  bank.     Several  peti- 

'•  Ibid.,  pp.  27f. 
'oJbid.,  pp.  ;isf. 
»'  Mo.  Laws.  2ml  U.  A..  1st  scss..  pp.  lltif. 


Statehood  in  the  Union.  319 

tions  and  resolutions  were  presented  from  the  inhabitants  of 
St.  Louis  county  requesting  the  estabHshment  of  a  state  bank 
and  a  bill  was  reported  by  Mr.  Ball  from  a  select  committee 
favoring  such  a  proposition.  This  bill  was,  however,  ordered 
indefinitely  postponed  by  a  vote  of  twenty-four  to  seventeen. ^^ 
After  this  vote  had  been  taken  a  petition  was  presented  from 
Montgomery  county,  praying  that  no  state  bank  be  established. 
Petitions  from  Howard,  Cooper  and  Chariton  counties  relating 
to  this  subject  were  also  presented,  but  these  were  conflicting 
in  their  purposes.^^  There  was,  however,  no  determined  de- 
mand for  a  state  bank  and  there  was  a  widespread  opposition  to 
such  an  institution.  The  unfortunate  experiences  of  other 
states  with  such  affairs  were  strong  arguments  against  Missouri 
venturing  into  this  field  and  it  was  not  until  1837  that  Missouri 
took  this  step. 

The  legislative  activity  of  the  June,  1821,  session  of  the 
Missouri  general  assembly  seems  to  have  met  with  little  criti- 
cism and  was  regarded  as  generally  good.  The  Jackson  Inde- 
pendent Patriot  of  July  7,  1821,  did  not  favor  the  act  for  the 
relief  of  debtors  and  creditors,  and  thought  that  this  act  worked 
a  hardship  on  the  honest  creditor.  Public  opinion  supported 
the  loan  office  law  and  was  practically  unanimous  in  favoring 
the  solemn  public  act.  Fourth  of  July  celebrations  were  held 
in  different  parts  of  the  State  at  which  toasts  were  drunk  in 
honor  of  Missouri  and  her  potential  admission.^^  Representa- 
tive of  these  were  the  toasts  drunk  at  a  "Dinner  given  by  the 
Young  Men  of  St.  Louis  at  Bennett's  Mansion  House.  Wm. 
V.  Rector,  presided."     Following  were  some  of  the  latter: 

"The  President's  Proclamation  for  the  admission  of  Missouri — 'If  it  were 
done,  when  'tis  done,  then  t'were  well  it  were  done  quickly." 

"The  People  of  Missouri — Willing  to  contend  for  their  just  rights  with 
moderation:  ready  to  defend  them  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet." 

"The  American  Senate — They  are  not  to  be  intimidated  by  the  threats  of 
Brennus  or  the  machinations  of  Cataline."  " 

The  long  longed  for  proclamation  of  President  Monroe 
was  issued  on  August  10,   1821.     In  it  were  recited  the  joint 


"Jackson   (Mo.)  Independent  Patriot,  July  7,   1821. 

»3  Ibid. 

"  St.  Louis  Enq.,  July  7,  21,  1821. 

"  St.  Louis  Enq.,  July  7,  1821. 


320  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

resolution  of  Congress  of  March  2nd,  and  that  part  of  Missouri's 
solemn  public  act  which  agreed  to  the  condition  imposed  by 
Congress.  It  stated  that  in  pursuance  of  the  former  resolution, 
the  authority  therein  vested  in  the  president,  and  the  compliance 
of  the  Missouri  general  assembly  with  the  condition  imposed, 
the  President  declared  "the  admission  of  the  said  State  of 
Missouri  into  this  Union  is  declared  to  be  complete."  ^^ 

Missouri's  Struggle  for  Statehood  ended  in  legal  parlance 
on  August  10,  1821.  Few  states  have  had  greater  difficulties 
in  reaching  this  goal.  No  state  has  had  abler  public  men 
working  for  her  interests.  And  no  people  has  conducted  itself 
more  temperately  in  the  face  of  frequently  insulting  circumstances 
drawn  out  over  years,  than  the  state  founders  of  Missouri  from 
1804  to  1821. 


"B.  S.  of  Mo.,  1825,  pp.  69f;  Richardson,  II.  95f. 


APPENDIX  I. 


MEMORIAL. 

OF   THE   CITIZENS   OF   MISSOURI    TERRITORY. 


To  the  honourable  the  Senate  and  the  House  of  Representatives, 
of   the   United   States   of   America,    in   Con- 
gress   Assembled, 

The  Petition  of  the  undersigned  inhabitants  of  the  Territory  of 
Missouri    respectfully   showeth : 

That  your  petitioners  live  within  that  part  of  the  Territory 
of  Missouri  which  lies  between  the  latitudes  36  degrees  30 
minutes,  &  40  degrees  North,  and  between  the  Mississippi  river 
to  the  East  and  the  Osage  boundary  line  to  the  West.  They 
pray  that  they  may  be  admitted  into  the  Union  of  the  states 
within  these  limits. 

They  conceive  that  their  numbers  entitle  them  to  the 
benefits  and  to  the  rank  of  a  state  government.  Taking  the 
progressive  increase  during  former  years,  as  the  basis  of  the 
calculation,  they  estimate  their  present  numbers  at  upwards 
of  40,000  souls.  Tennessee,  Ohio,  and  the  Mississippi  state 
were  admitted  with  smaller  numbers,  and  the  treaty  of  cession 
guarantees  this  great  privilege  to  your  petitioners  as  soon  as 
it  can  be  granted  under  the  principles  of  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion. They  have  passed  eight  years  in  the  first  grade  of  ter- 
ritorial government,  five  in  the  second;  they  have  evinced  their 
attachment  to  the  honour  and  integrity  of  the  Union  during 
the  late  war,  and  they,  with  deference,  urge  their  right  to  be- 
come a  member  of  the  great  Republick. 

They  forbear  to  dilate  upon  the  evils  of  the  territorial 
government,  but  will  barely  name,  among  the  grievances  of 
this  condition — 

M  S— 21  (321) 


322  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

1.  That  they  have  no  vote  in  your  honourable  body,  and 
yet  are  subject  to  the  indirect  taxes  imposed  by  you. 

2.  That  the  veto  of  the  territorial  executive  is  absolute 
upon  the  acts  of  the  territorial  legislature. 

3.  That  the  superior  court  is  constructed  on  principles 
unheard  of  in  any  other  system  of  jurisprudence,  having  primary 
cognizance  of  almost  every  controversy,  civil  and  criminal,  and 
subject  to  correction  by  no  other  tribunal!!! 

4.  That  the  powers  of  the  territorial  legislature  are  limited 
in  the  passage  of  laws  of  a  local  nature,  owing  to  the  paramount 
authority  of  Congress  to  legislate  upon  the  same  subject. 

The  boundaries  which  they  solicit  for  the  future  state,  they 
believe  to  be  the  most  reasonable  and  proper  that  can  be  de- 
vised. The  southern  limit  will  be  an  extension  of  the  line  that 
divides  Virginia  and  North  Carolina,  Tennessee  and  Kentucky. 
The  northern  will  correspond  nearly  with  the  north  limit  of  the 
territory  of  Illinois  and  with  the  Indian  boundary  line,  near  the 
mouth  of  the  River  Des  Moines.  A  front  of  three  and  a  half 
degrees  upon  the  Mississippi  will  be  left  to  the  South,  to  form 
the  territory  of  Arkansas,  with  the  River  Arkansas  traversing 
its  centre.  A  front  of  three  &  a  half  degrees  more,  upon  a  medium 
depth  of  200  miles,  with  the  Missouri  River  in  the  centre,  will 
form  the  State  of  Missouri.  Another  front  of  equal  extent, 
embracing  the  great  River  St.  Pierre,  will  remain  above,  to 
form  another  state,  at  some  future  day. 

The  boundaries,  as  solicited,  will  include  all  the  country 
to  the  north  and  west  to  which  the  Indian  title  has  been  extin- 
guished. 

They  will  include  the  body  of  the  population. 

They  will  make  the  Missouri  River  the  centre,  and  not  the 
boundary  of  the  state. 

Your  petitioners  deprecate  the  idea  of  making  the  civil 
divisions  of  the  states  to  correspond  with  the  natural  divisions 
of  the  country.  Such  divisions  will  promote  that  tendency  to 
separate,  which  it  is  the  policy  of  the  Union  to  counteract. 

The  above  described  boundaries  are  adapted  to  the  lo- 
calities of  the  country. 


Memorial  of  the  Citizens  of  Missouri  Territory.         323 

The  woodland  districts  are  found  towards  the  great  rivers. 
The  interior  is  composed  of  vast  regions  of  naked  and  sterile 
plains,  stretching  to  the  Shining  Mountains.  The  states  must 
have  large  fronts  upon  the  Mississippi,  to  prevent  themselves 
from  being  carried  into  these  deserts. — 

Besides,  the  country  north  &  south  of  the  Missouri  is  nec- 
essary each  to  the  other,  the  former  possessing  a  rich  soil  desti- 
tute of  minerals,  the  latter  abounding  in  mines  of  lead  and  iron, 
and  thinly  sprinkled  with  spots  of  ground  fit  for  cultivation. 

Your  petitioners  hope  that  their  voice  may  have  some 
weight  in  the  division  of  their  own  country,  and  in  the  for- 
mation of  their  state  boundaries;  and  that  statesmen,  ignorant 
of  its  localities,  may  not  undertake  to  cut  up  their  territory 
with  fanciful  divisions  which  may  look  handsome  on  paper, 
but  must  be  ruinous  in  effect. 

And  your  petitioners  will  pray,  &c. 

S.  Hall,  Printer,  St.  Louis.     [1817.] 


APPENDIX  II. 

MEMORIAL  AND  RESOLUTIONS  of  The  Legislature 
of  THE  MISSOURI  TERRITORY,  and  A  Copy  Of  The 
Census  of  the  fall  of  1817:  Amounting  To  19,218  Males.  De- 
cember 8,  1819.  Referred  to  a  Select  Committee.  Washing- 
ton:  Printed  by  Gales  &  Seaton.     1819. 

To  the  Honorable  the  Senate,  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States  of  America,  in   Congress  assembled: 

The  Memorial  of  the  Legislative  Council,  and  House  of 
Representatives,  of  the  Territory  of  Missouri,  in  the  name  and 
behalf  of  the  people  of  said  Territory,  respectfully  sheweth, 

That  their  Territory  contains  at  present  a  population  little 
short  of  one  hundred  thousand  souls,  which  is  daily  increasing, 
with  a  rapidity  almost  unexampled;  that  their  territorial  limits 
are  too  extensive  to  admit  of  a  convenient,  proper,  and  equal 
administration  of  government;  and  that  the  present  interest 
and  accommodation,  as  well  as  the  future  growth  and  prosperity 
of  their  country,  will  be  greatly  promoted  by  the  following 
division,  which  your  memorialists  propose,  to  the  end  that  the 
people  may  be  authorized  by  law  to  form  a  constitution,  and 
establish  a  state  government,  within  the  following  limits: 

Beginning  at  a  point  in  the  middle  of  the  main  channel  of 
the  Mississippi  river,  at  the  thirty-sixth  degree  of  north  latitude, 
and  running  thence,  in  a  direct  line,  to  the  mouth  of  Big  Black 
river  (a  branch  of  White  river)  thence,  up  the  main  branch  of 
White  river,  in  the  middle  of  the  main  channel  thereof,  to  where 
the  parallel  of  thirty-six  degrees,  thirty  minutes,  north  latitude, 
crosses  the  same;  thence,  with  that  parallel  of  latitude,  due 
west,  to  a  point,  from  which  a  due  north  line  will  cross  the  Mis- 
souri river,  at  the  mouth  of  Wolf  river;  thence,  due  north,  to 
a  point  due  west  of  the  mouth  of  Rock  river,  thence,  due  cast, 
to  the  middle  of  the  main  channel  of  the  river  Mississippi,  in 
the  middle  of  the  main  channel  thereof,  to  the  place  of  be- 
ginning. 

(324) 


Memorial  and  Resolutions.  325 

These  are  limits  which,  to  a  superficial  observer,  glancing 
over  the  chart  of  our  country,  would  seem  a  little  unreasonable 
and  extravagant;  but  which,  a  slight  attention  to  its  geography 
(or  more  properly  to  its  topography)  will  be  sufficient  to  satisfy 
your  honorable  body,  are  not  only  proper,  but  necessary:  The 
districts  of  country  that  are  fertile,  and  susceptible  of  settlement, 
are  small,  and  are  detached  and  separated  from  each  other,  at 
great  distances,  by  immense  plains  and  barren  tracts,  which 
must  for  ages  remain  waste  and  uninhabited.  These  distant 
frontier  settlements,  thus  insulated,  must  ever  be  weak  and 
powerless  in  themselves;  and  can  only  become  important  and 
respectable,  by  being  united;  and  one  of  the  great  objects  your 
memorialists  have  in  view,  is  the  formation  of  an  effectual 
barrier  for  the  future  against  Indian  incursions,  by  pushing 
forward,  and  fostering  a  strong  settlement  on  the  little  river 
Plate,  to  the  west,  and  on  the  Des  Moines,  to  the  north. 

Your  memorialists  are  free  to  declare,  and  are  happy  in 
declaring,  that  they  do  not  feel  the  necessity  of  enforcing  their 
wishes  by  an  elaborate  detail  of  the  blessings  of  self-government, 
or  a  particular  enumeration  of  the  rights  and  immunities  guar- 
antied to  them  by  the  treaty  of  cession.  Your  memorialists 
feel  a  firm  confidence,  founded  on  the  wise  and  generous  policy 
heretofore  pursued  by  your  honorable  body  (and  to  which  they 
owe  their  existence  as  a  portion  of  the  great  American  family) 
that  they  need  only  pray  to  be  incorporated  in  the  Union,  and 
to  show  that  it  is  not  only  "possible,"  but  convenient  and 
proper  (according  to  the  principles  of  the  Federal  Constitution) 
to  have  their  prayer  answered. 

There  are  many  grievances  of  which  your  memorialists 
might  complain,  and  complain  heavily  too,  and  many  that  are 
much  more  easily  felt  than  described,  yet  most  of  them,  it  must 
be  confessed,  are  inseparable  from  the  form  of  government 
under  w^hich  they  live,  and  none  of  them  have  been  imposed, 
through  choice,  by  the  general  government.  And  your  memorial- 
ists can  feel  no  wish  or  motive  now  to  complain  of  old  grievances 
they  have  long  borne  with  patiently;  cheered  with  the  hope 
that  their  sufferings  must  soon  have  an  end,  they  would  choose 
rather  to  forget  them.     There  are,  however,  rights,  privileges, 


326  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

and  immunities,  belonging  to  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
which  your  memorialists  would  proudly  claim,  to  which  they 
aspire,  and  with  which  they  pray  to  be  invested:  These,  they 
fondly  believe,  should  not  and  will  not  now  be  regarded  by 
your  honorable  body  as  mere  matters  of  grace  and  favor. 

And  though  the  enclosed  documents  are  not  so  satisfactory 
as  your  memorialists  would  wish  to  have  forwarded,  they  may 
still  serve  to  shew  you  that  the  population  included  within  the 
counties  of  New  Madrid,  Lawrence,  St.  Genevieve,  Cape  Girar- 
deau, Washington,  St.  Louis,  St.  Charles,  and  Howard,  (which 
are  within  the  above  limits)  are  more  than  equal  to  the  number 
of  inhabitants  heretofore  required  by  the  laws  and  constitution 
of  the  United  States  upon  the  admission  of  any  new  state  into 
the  union;  and  that,  whilst  every  thing  is  hoped  for,  from  the 
spirit  of  a  generous  and  enlightened  policy,  much  might  have 
been  claimed,  in  justice,  on  the  faith  of  the  treaty  of  cession. 

DAVID  BARTON, 
Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 
BENJAMIN  EMMONS, 
President  of  the  Legislative  Council. 
St.  Louis,  22d  November,  1818. 
The  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  the  original. 

D.  BARTON, 
Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Resolved,  by  the  Legislative  Council,  and  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives of  the  Territory  of  Missouri,  That  the  Delegate  repre- 
senting this  Territory  in  Congress  be  requested  to  use  his  ex- 
ertions to  procure  the  passage  of  a  law,  to  authorize  the  people 
of  this  Territory,  within  the  limits  prayed  for,  in  the  memorial 
of  the  Legislative  Council,  and  House  of  Represcntati  v^cs, 
passed  the  thirteenth  day  of  November  instant,  (or  such  other 
limits,  as  nearly  as  possible  to  those  prayed  for,  as  Congress 
will  grant,)  to  form  a  constitution  and  state  government,  and 
to  provide  for  their  admission  into  The  Union,  o\\  an  equal 
footing  with  the  original  states. 

Resolved,  That  the  Delegate  representing  this  Territory,  as 
aforesaid,  be  further  requested  to  use  his  exertions  to  procure, 


Memorial  and  Resolutions.  327 

in  the  said  proposed  state,  the  following  donations  and  appro- 
priations, to  wit: 

1st.  Lead  mines,  with  one  section  of  land  adjoining  to 
each,  and  salt  springs,  with  four  sections  of  land  adjoining  each, 
to  be  leased  for  the  use  of  the  state. 

2d.     One  township  of  land  for  the  support  of  a  college. 

3d.  One  township  of  land,  to  be  disposed  of  as  the  legisla- 
ture of  the  state  shall  direct,  for  the  purpose  of  raising  a  fund 
for  erecting  state  buildings,  at  the  permanent  seat  of  govern- 
ment. 

4th.  All  vacant  lots  and  pieces  of  ground,  in  towns  or 
villages,  for  the  use  of  the  towns  or  villages  in  which  they  lie, 
for  the  support  of  schools. 

5th.  The  sum  of  nine  per  centum,  on  the  amount  of  all 
sales  of  public  land,  within  the  limits  of  the  said  proposed  state, 
to  be  expended,  under  the  direction  of  Congress,  for  the  objects, 
and  in  the  manner  following,  that  is  to  say;  one  per  centum 
thereof  for  perfecting  the  water  communications  between  the 
Mississippi  and  lake  Michigan,  by  the  Illinois  and  Ouisconsin 
rivers.  Six  per  centum  thereof,  for  continuing  the  national 
western  turnpike  road,  from  Wheeling,  on  the  Ohio,  to  Saint 
Louis;  and  two  per  centum  thereof  for  opening  a  road  direct 
from  Saint  Louis  to  New  Orleans. 

6th.  The  sum  of  five  per  centum  on  the  amount  of  the 
same  sales  to  be  appropriated  and  expended  under  the  direction 
of  the  state  legislature,  as  follow,  to  wit:  two  per  centum  for 
the  support  of  schools  in  the  State,  and  three  per  centum  for 
opening  roads  and  canals,  and  building  bridges,  within  the 
State. 

Resolved,  That  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
of  this  Territory  be,  and  he  is  hereby,  requested  to  forward  to 
the  delegate  representing  this  Territory  in  Congress,  one  copy 
of  the  above  resolutions,  and  also  one  copy  of  the  memorial  of 
the  legislative  council  and  house  of  representatives  to  Congress 
on  the  subject  of  a  state  government.     And,  also,  to  forward 


328  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

one  copy  of  said  memorial  to  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives in  Congress. 

DAVID  BARTON, 
Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 
THOMAS  F.  RIDDICK, 
President  of  the  Legislative  Council,  pro  tem. 
The  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  the  original. 

DAVID  BARTON, 
Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 
St.  Louis,  22d  November,   1818. 

Copy  of  the  enumeration  of  the  Missouri  Territory,  under 
the  act  of  1st  February,  1817,  and  which  was  taken  and  returned 
in  the  fall  of  1817  to  the  Governor  of  the  Territory,  as  trans- 
mitted to  me  by  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Howard  County 3 ,386  6  Reps Fractions,  386 

St.  Charles  do. .  .  .  2,866  5     do do.  366 

St.  Louis                       do 4,725  9     do do.  225 

St.  Genevieve  do. .  .  .  2,205  4     do do.  205 

Washington  do. .  .  .  1 ,245  2     do do.  245 

Cape  Girardeau  do. .  .  .  2,593  5     do do.  93 

New  Madrid  do...  669  1     do do.  169 

Lawrence  do. .  .  .  1 ,529  3     do do.  29 

Arkansas  do,     no  return  1 


19,218       36 

The  census  was  taken  in  August  and  September,  1817,  and 
is  the  male  population  only,  independent  of  the  females  and 
blacks;  to  which  is  to  be  now  added  the  internal  increase  and 
emigration  ever  since. 

JOHN  SCOTT. 


(Author's  Note: — The  memorial  above  mentions  documents  that  were  entered 
with  it.  The  author  has  never  seen  these  documents  in  any  form.  They  would, 
undoubtedly,  throw  much  light  on  the  condition  of  the  territory  at  this  time 
and  it  is  to  be  greatly  regretted  that  they  have  not  been  preserved.  It  is  possible 
that  the  documents  referred  to  were  the  six  resolutions  adopted  by  the  legislature 
and  very  i)robably  another  was  an  extract  of  the  census  taken  in  the  summer  of 
1817, — both  of  which  are  copied  above.  It  shouitl  also  1)0  noted  that  in  tlie 
Introduction  to  the  resolution,  the  statement  is  made  that  the  memorial  was 
"passed  the  thirteentli  day  of  November  instant."  The  authentication  of  these 
documents  was  made  by  Barton  on  the  22nd  of  November.) 


APPENDIX  III. 

MISSOURI  CONSTITUTION  OF  1820. 

(Note:    Copied  from  the  Washington,  D.  C,  edition,  1820.) 

We,  the  people  of  Missouri,  inhabiting  the  limits  herein- 
after designated,  by  our  representatives  in  convention  as- 
sembled, at  St.  Louis,  on  Monday,  the  12th  day  of  June,  1820, 
do  mutually  agree  to  form  and  establish  a  free  and  independent 
republic,  by  the  name  of  'The  State  of  Missouri,"  and  for  the 
government  thereof  do  ordain  and  establish  this  constitution. 

Article  I.    Of  Boundaries. 

We  do  declare,  establish,  ratify,  and  confirm  the  following 
as  the  permanent  boundaries  of  said  state,  that  is  to  say:  "Be- 
ginning in  the  middle  of  the  Mississippi  river,  on  the  parallel  of 
thirty-six  degrees  of  north  latitude;  thence,  west,  along  the 
said  parallel  of  latitude,  to  the  St.  Francois  river;  thence,  up, 
and  following  the  course  of  that  river,  in  the  middle  of  the  main 
channel  thereof,  to  the  parallel  of  latitude  of  thirty-six  degrees 
and  thirty  minutes;  thence,  west,  along  the  same,  to  a  point 
where  the  said  parallel  is  intersected  by  a  meridian  line  passing 
through  the  middle  of  the  mouth  of  the  Kansas  river,  where 
the  same  empties  into  the  Missouri  river;  thence,  from  the  point 
aforesaid,  north,  along  the  said  meridian  line,  to  the  intersection 
of  the  parallel  of  latitude  which  passes  through  the  rapids  of 
the  river  Des  Moines,  making  the  said  line  correspond  with 
the  Indian  boundary  line;  thence,  east,  from  the  point  of  inter- 
section last  aforesaid,  along  the  said  parallel  of  latitude,  to  the 
middle  of  the  channel  of  the  main  fork  of  the  said  river  Des 
Moines;  thence,  down,  and  along  the  middle  of  the  main  channel 
of  the  said  river  Des  Moines,  to  the  mouth  of  the  same,  where 
it  empties  into  the  Mississippi  river;  thence,  due  east,  to  the 
middle  of  the  main  channel  of  the  Mississippi  river;  thence, 
down,  and  following  the  course  of  the  Mississippi  river,  in  the 
middle  of  the  main  channel  thereof,  to  the  place  of  beginning." 

(329) 


330  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 


Article  II.     Of  the  Distribution  of  Powers. 

The  powers  of  government  shall  be  divided  into  three 
distinct  departments,  each  of  which  shall  be  confided  to  a 
separate  magistracy;  and  no  person  charged  with  the  exercise 
of  powers  properly  belonging  to  one  of  those  departments, 
shall  exercise  any  power  properly  belonging  to  either  of  the 
others,  except  in  the  instances  hereinafter  expressly  directed 
or  permitted. 

Article  III.     Of  the  Legislative  Power. 

Sec.  1.  The  legislative  power  shall  be  vested  in  a  "General 
Assembly,"  which  shall  consist  of  a  "Senate,"  and  a  "House 
of   Representatives." 

Sec.  2.  The  house  of  representatives  shall  consist  of 
members  to  be  chosen  every  second  year,  by  the  qualified 
electors  of  the  several  counties.  Each  county  shall  have  at 
least  one  representative,  but  the  whole  number  of  representa- 
tives shall  never  exceed  one  hundred. 

Sec.  3.  No  person  shall  be  a  member  of  the  house  of 
representatives  who  shall  not  have  attained  to  the  age  of 
twenty-four  years;  who  shall  not  be  a  free  white  male  citizen 
of  the  United  States;  who  shall  not  have  been  an  inhabitant 
of  this  state  two  years,  and  of  the  county  which  he  represents, 
one  year,  next  before  his  election,  if  such  county  shall  have 
been  so  long  established,  but,  if  not,  than  of  the  county  or 
counties  from  which  the  same  shall  have  been  taken;  and  who 
shall  not,  moreover,  have  paid  a  state  or  county  tax. 

Sec.  4.  The  general  assembly,  at  their  first  session,  and 
in  the  years  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  twenty-two,  and 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  twenty-four,  respectivch', 
and  every  fourth  year  thereafter,  shall  cause  an  enumeration 
of  the  inhabitants  of  this  state  to  be  made;  and,  at  the  first 
session  after  each  enumeration,  shall  apportion  the  number  of 
representatives  among  the  several  counties,  according  to  the 
number  of  free  white  male  inhabitants  therein. 

Sec.  5.  The  senators  shall  be  chosen  by  the  qualified 
electors  for  the  term  of  four  years.     No  person  shall  be  a  senator 


Missouri  Constitution  of  1820.  331 

who  shall  not  have  attained  to  the  age  of  thirty  years;  who 
shall  not  be  a  free  white  male  citizen  of  the  United  States;  who 
shall  not  have  been  an  inhabitant  of  this  state  four  years,  and 
of  the  district  which  he  may  be  chosen  to  represent,  one  year, 
next  before  his  election,  if  such  district  shall  have  been  so  long 
established,  but,  if  not,  then  of  the  district  or  districts  from 
which  the  same  shall  have  been  taken;  and,  who  shall  not, 
moreover,  have  paid  a  state  or  county  tax. 

Sec.  6.  The  senate  shall  consist  of  not  less  than  fourteen, 
nor  more  than  thirty-three  members;  for  the  election  of  whom 
the  state  shall  be  divided  into  convenient  districts,  which  may 
be  altered  from  time  to  time,  and  new  districts  established,  as 
public  convenience  may  require;  and  the  senators  shall  be  ap- 
portioned among  the  several  districts  according  to  the  number 
of  free  white  male  inhabitants  in  each;  provided,  that  when  a 
senatorial  district  shall  be  composed  of  two  or  more  counties, 
the  counties  of  which  such  district  consists  shall  not  be  entirely 
separated  by  any  county  belonging  to  another  district,  and  no 
county  shall  be  divided  in  forming  a  district. 

Sec.  7.  At  the  first  session  of  the  general  assembly  the 
senators  shall  be  divided  by  lot,  as  equally  as  may  be,  into  two 
classes.  The  seats  of  the  first  class  shall  be  vacated  at  the 
end  of  the  second  year,  and  the  seats  of  the  second  class  at  the 
end  of  the  fourth  year,  so  that  one-half  of  the  senators  shall  be 
chosen  every  second  year. 

Sec.  8.  After  the  first  day  of  January,  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  twenty-two,  all  general  elections  shall  com- 
mence on  the  first  Monday  in  August,  and  shall  be  held  bi- 
ennially; and  the  electors,  in  all  cases,  except  of  treason,  felony, 
or  breach  of  the  peace,  shall  be  privileged  from  arrest  during 
their  continuance  at  elections,  and  in  going  to,  and  returning 
from,  the  same. 

Sec.  9.  The  governor  shall  issue  writs  of  election  to  fill 
such  vacancies  as  may  occur  in  either  house  of  the  general 
assembly. 

Sec.  10.  Every  free  white  male  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  who  shall  have  attained  to  the  age  of  twenty-one  years, 
and  who  shall  have  resided  in  this  state  one  year  before  an  elec- 


332  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

tion,  the  last  three  months  whereof  shall  have  been  in  the 
county,  or  district,  in  which  he  offers  to  vote,  shall  be  deemed 
a  qualified  elector  of  all  elective  offices;  provided,  that  no 
soldier,  seaman,  or  marine,  in  the  regular  army  or  navy  of  the 
United  States,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at  any  election  in  this 
state. 

Sec.  11.  No  judge  of  any  court  of  law  or  equity,  secretary 
of  state,  attorney  general,  state  auditor,  state  or  county  treas- 
urer, register,  or  recorder,  clerk  of  any  court  of  record,  sheriff", 
coroner,  member  of  Congress,  nor  other  person  holding  any 
lucrative  office  under  the  United  States,  or  this  State,  militia 
officers,  justices  of  the  peace,  and  post-masters  excepted,  shall 
be  eligible  to  either  house  of  the  general  assembly. 

Sec.  12.  No  person  who  now  is,  or  who  hereafter  may  be, 
a  collector  or  holder  of  public  money,  nor  any  assistant  or  deputy 
of  such  collector  or  holder  of  public  money,  shall  be  eligible  to 
either  house  of  the  general  assembly,  nor  to  any  office  of  profit 
or  trust,  until  he  sahll  [shall]  have  accounted  for  and  paid  all 
sums  for  which  he  may  be  accountable. 

Sec.  13.  No  person  while  he  continues  to  exercise  the 
functions  of  a  bishop,  priest,  clergymen,  or  teacher  of  any 
religious  persuasion,  denomination,  society,  or  sect,  whatsoever, 
shall  be  eligible  to  either  house  of  the  general  assembly;  nor 
shall  he  be  appointed  to  any  office  of  profit  within  the  state, 
the  office  of  justice  of  the  peace  excepted. 

Sec.  14.  The  general  assembly  shall  have  power  to  exclude 
from  every  office  of  honor,  trust,  or  profit,  within  this  state, 
and  from  the  right  of  suffrage,  all  persons  convicted  of  bribery, 
perjury,  or  other  infamous  crime. 

Sec.  15.  Every  person  who  shall  be  convicted  of  having, 
directly  or  indirectly,  given  or  offered  any  bribe  to  procu-e 
his  election  or  appointment,  shall  be  disqualified  for  any  office 
of  honor,  trust,  or  profit,  under  this  state;  and  any  person  who 
shall  give  or  offer  any  bribe  to  procure  the  election  or  appoint- 
ment of  any  other  person,  shall,  on  conviction  thereof,  be  dis- 
qualified for  an  elector,  or  for  any  office  of  honor,  trust,  or  profit, 
under  this  state,  for  ten  years  after  such  conviction. 


Missouri  Constitution  of  1820.  333 

Sec.  16.  No  senator  or  representative  shall,  during  the 
term  for  which  he  shall  have  been  elected,  be  appointed  to  any 
civil  office  under  this  state,  which  shall  have  been  created,  or 
the  emoluments  of  which  shall  have  been  increased,  during  his 
continuance  in  office,  except  to  such  offices  as  shall  be  filled  by 
elections  of  the  people. 

Sec.  17.  Each  house  shall  appoint  its  own  officers,  and 
shall  judge  of  the  qualifications,  elections,  and  returns,  of  its 
own  members.  A  majority  of  each  house  shall  constitute  a 
quorum  to  do  business,  but  a  smaller  number  may  adjourn  from 
day  to  day,  and  may  compel  the  attendance  of  absent  members 
in  such  manner,  and  under  such  penalties,  as  such  house  may 
provide. 

Sec.  18.  Each  house  may  determine  the  rules  of  its  pro- 
ceedings, punish  its  members  for  disorderly  behavior,  and, 
with  the  concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  all  the  members  elected, 
expel  a  member,  but  no  member  shall  be  expelled  a  second  time 
for  the  same  cause.  They  shall  each,  from  time  to  time,  publish 
a  journal  of  their  proceedings,  except  such  parts  as  may  in  their 
opinion  require  secrecy;  and  the  yeas  and  nays  on  any  question 
shall  be  entered  on  the  journal  at  the  desire  of  any  two  members. 

Sec.  19.  The  doors  of  each  house,  and  of  committees  of  the 
whole,  shall  be  kept  open,  except  in  cases  which  may  require 
secrecy;  and  each  house  may  punish,  by  fine  or  imprisonment, 
any  person,  not  a  member,  who  shall  be  guilty  of  disrespect  to 
the  house,  by  any  disorderly  or  contemptuous  behavior  in  their 
presence,  during  their  session;  provided,  that  such  fine  shall 
not  exceed  three  hundred  dollars,  and  such  imprisonment  shall 
not  exceed  forty-eight  hours  for  one  offence. 

Sec.  20.  Neither  house  shall,  without  the  consent  of  the 
other,  adjourn  for  more  than  two  days  at  any  one  time,  nor 
to  any  other  place  than  to  that  in  which  the  two  houses  may 
be  sitting. 

Sec.  21.  Bills  may  originate  in  either  house,  and  may  be 
altered,  amended,  or  rejected,  by  the  other;  and  every  bill  shall 
be  read  on  three  different  days  in  each  house,  unless  two-thirds 
of  the  house  where  the  same  is  depending  shall  dispense  with 
this  rule;  and  every  bill,  having  passed  both  houses,  shall  be 


334  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

signed  by  the  speaker  of  the  house  of  representatives,  and  by 
the  president  of  the  senate. 

Sec.  22.  When  any  officer,  civil  or  military,  shall  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  joint  or  concurrent  vote  of  both  houses,  or  by 
separate  vote  of  either  house  of  the  general  assembly,  the  votes 
shall  be  publicly  given  viva  voce,  and  entered  on  the  journals. 
The  whole  list  of  the  members  shall  be  called,  and  the  names  of 
absentees  shall  be  noted  and  published  with  the  journal. 

Sec.  23.  Senators  and  representatives  shall,  in  all  cases, 
except  of  treason,  felony,  or  breach  of  the  peace,  be  privileged 
from  arrest  during  the  session  of  the  general  assembly,  and  for 
fifteen  days  next  before  the  commencement  and  after  the 
termination  of  each  session;  and  for  any  speech  or  debate  in 
either  house  they  shall  not  be  questioned  in  any  other  place. 

Sec.  24.  The  members  of  the  general  assembly  shall 
severally  receive  from  the  public  treasury  a  compensation  for 
their  services,  which  may,  from  time  to  time,  be  increased  or 
diminished  by  law;  but  no  alteration  increasing  or  tending 
to  increase  the  compensation  of  members,  shall  take  efTect 
during  the  session  at  which  such  alterations  shall  be  made. 

Sec.  25.  The  general  assembly  shall  direct,  by  law,  in 
what  manner,  and  in  what  courts,  suits  may  be  brought  against 
the  state. 

Sec.  26.  The  general  assembly  shall  have  no  power  to 
pass  laws;  First,  For  the  emancipation  of  slaves  without  the 
consent  of  their  owners,  or  without  paying  them,  before  such 
emancipation,  a  full  equivalent  for  such  slaves  so  emancipated; 
and.  Second,  To  prevent  bona  fide  emigrants  to  this  state,  or 
actual  settlers  therein,  from  bringing  from  any  of  the  United 
States,  or  from  any  of  their  territories,  such  persons  as  may 
there  be  deemed  to  be  slaves,  so  long  as  any  persons  of  the  same 
description  are  allowed  to  be  held  as  slaves  by  the  laws  of  this 
state. 

They  shall  have  power  to  pass  laws;  First,  To  prohibit  tlie 
introduction  into  this  state  of  any  slave  who  may  have  com- 
mitted any  high  crime  in  any  other  state  or  territory;  Second,  To 
prohibit  the  introduction  of  any  slave  for  the  purpose  of  spec- 
ulation, or  as  an  article  of  trade  or  merchandise;  Third,  To 


Missouri  Constitution  of  1820.  335 

prohibit  the  introduction  of  any  slave,  or  the  offspring  of  any 
slave,  who  heretofore  may  have  been  or  who  hereafter  may  be, 
imported  from  any  foreign  country  into  the  United  States, 
or  any  territory  thereof,  in  contravention  of  any  existing  stat- 
ute of  the  United  States;  and,  Fourth,  To  permit  the  owners  of 
slaves  to  emancipate  them,  saving  the  rights  of  creditors,  where 
the  person  so  emancipating  will  give  security  that  the  slave  so 
emancipated  shall  not  become  a  public  charge. 

It  shall  be  their  duty,  as  soon  as  may  be,  to  pass  such  laws 
as  may  be  necessary. 

First,  To  prevent  free  negroes  and  mulattoes  from  coming 
to,  and  settling  in,  this  state,  under  any  pretext  whatsoever; 
and, 

Second,  To  oblige  the  owners  of  slaves  to  treat  them  with 
humanity,  and  to  abstain  from  all  injuries  to  them  extending 
to  life  or  limb. 

Sec.  27.  In  prosecutions  for  crimes,  slaves  shall  not  be 
deprived  of  an  impartial  trial  by  jury;  and  a  slave  convicted  of 
a  capital  offence  shall  suffer  the  same  degree  of  punishment, 
and  no  other,  that  would  be  inflicted  on  a  free  white  person 
for  a  like  offence;  and  courts  of  justice  before  whom  slaves  shall 
be  tried,  shall  assign  them  counsel  for  their  defence. 

Sec.  28.  Any  person  who  shall  maliciously  deprive  of  life 
or  dismember  a  slave,  shall  suffer  such  punishment  as  would  be 
inflicted  for  the  like  offence  if  it  were  committed  on  a  free  white 
person. 

Sec.  29.  The  governor,  lieutenant  governor,  secretary  of 
state,  auditor,  treasurer,  attorney  general,  and  all  judges  of  the 
courts  of  law  and  equity,  shall  be  liable  to  impeachment  for 
any  misdemeanor  in  office;  but  judgment  in  such  case  shall 
not  extend  farther  than  removal  from  office,  and  disqualification 
to  hold  any  office  of  honor,  trust,  or  profit,  under  this  state. 
The  party  impeached,  whether  convicted  or  acquitted,  shall, 
nevertheless,  be  liable  to  be  indicted,  tried  and  punished,  ac- 
cording to  law. 

Sec.  30.  The  house  of  representatives  shall  have  the  sole 
power  of  impeachment.  All  impeachments  shall  be  tried  by 
the  senate;  and,  when  sitting  for  that  purpose,  the  senators 


336  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

shall  be  on  oath  or  affirmation  to  do  justice  according  to  law 
and  evidence.  When  the  governor  shall  be  tried,  the  presiding 
judge  of  the  supreme  court  shall  preside;  and  no  person  shall  be 
convicted  without  the  concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  all  the 
senators  present. 

Sec.  31.  A  state  treasurer  shall  be  biennially  appointed  by 
joint  vote  of  the  two  houses  of  the  general  assembly,  who  shall 
keep  his  office  at  the  seat  of  government.  No  money  shall  be 
drawn  from  the  treasury  but  in  consequence  of  appropriations 
made  by  law;  and  an  accurate  account  of  the  receipts  and  ex- 
penditures of  the  public  money  shall  be  annually  published. 

Sec.  32.  The  appointment  of  all  officers,  not  otherwise 
directed  by  this  constitution,  shall  be  made  in  such  manner 
as  may  be  prescribed  by  law;  and  all  officers,  both  civil  and 
military,  under  the  authority  of  this  state,  shall,  before  entering 
on  the  duties  of  their  respective  offices,  take  an  oath  or  affirma- 
tion to  support  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  of 
this  State,  and  to  demean  themselves  faithfully  in  office. 

Sec.  33.  The  general  assembly  shall  meet  on  the  third 
Monday  in  September  next;  on  the  first  Monday  in  November, 
eighteen  hundred  and  twenty-one;  on  the  first  Monday  in 
November,  eighteen  hundred  and  twenty-two;  and  thereafter 
the  general  assembly  shall  meet  once  in  every  two  years,  and 
such  meeting  shall  be  on  the  first  Monday  in  November,  unless 
a  different  day  shall  be  appointed  by  law. 

Sec.  34.  No  county  now  established  by  law  shall  ever  be  re- 
duced, by  the  establishment  of  new  counties,  to  less  than  twenty 
miles  square;  nor  shall  any  county  hereafter  be  established 
which  shall  contain  less  than  four  hundred  square  miles. 

Sec.  35.  Within  five  years  after  the  adoption  of  this  con- 
stitution, all  the  statute  laws  of  a  general  nature,  both  civil  and 
criminal,  shall  be  revised,  digested,  and  promulgated,  in  such 
manner  as  the  general  assembly  shall  direct,  and  a  like  revision, 
digest,  and  promulgation,  shall  be  made  at  the  expiration  of 
every  subsequent  period  of  ten  years. 

Sec.  36.  The  style  of  the  laws  of  this  state  shall  be — "Be 
it  enacted  by  the  general  assembly  of  the  state  of  Missouri." 


Missouri  Constitution  of  1820.  337 

Article  IV.    Of  the  Executive  Power. 

Sec.  1.  The  supreme  executive  power  shall  be  vested  in 
a  chief  magistrate,  who  shall  be  styled  "The  Governor  of  the 
state  of  Missouri." 

Sec.  2.  The  governor  shall  be  at  least  thirty-five  years 
of  age,  and  a  natural  born  citizen  of  the  United  States,  or  a 
citizen  at  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States, 
or  an  inhabitant  of  that  part  of  Louisiana  now  included  in  the 
state  of  Missouri  at  the  time  of  the  cession  thereof  from  France 
to  the  United  States,  and  shall  have  been  a  resident  of  the 
same  at  least  four  years  next  before  his  election. 

Sec.  3.  The  governor  shall  hold  his  office  for  four  years, 
and  until  a  successor  be  duly  appointed  and  qualified.  He 
shall  be  elected  in  the  manner  following:  At  the  time  and  place 
of  voting  for  members  of  the  house  of  representatives,  the 
qualified  electors  shall  vote  for  a  governor;  and  when  two  or 
more  persons  have  an  equal  number  of  votes,  and  a  higher 
number  than  any  other  person,  the  election  shall  be  decided 
between  them  by  a  joint  vote  of  both  houses  of  the  general 
assembly  at  their  next  session. 

Sec.  4.  The  governor  shall  be  ineligible  for  the  next  four 
years  after  the  expiration  of  his  term  of  service. 

Sec.  5.  The  governor  shall  be  commander  in  chief  of  the 
militia  and  navy  of  this  state,  except  when  they  shall  be  called 
into  the  service  of  the  United  States;  but  he  need  not  command 
in  person,  unless  advised  so  to  do  by  a  resolution  of  the  general 
assembly. 

Sec.  6.  The  governor  shall  have  power  to  remit  fines  and 
forfeitures,  and,  except  in  cases  of  impeachment,  to  grant  re- 
prieves and  pardons. 

Sec.  7.  The  governor  shall,  from  time  to  time,  give  to  the 
general  assembly  information  relative  to  the  state  of  the  govern- 
ment, and  shall  recommend  to  their  consideration  such  measures 
as  he  shall  deem  necessary  and  expedient.  On  extraordinary 
occasions  he  may  convene  the  general  assembly  by  proclama- 
tion, and  shall  state  to  them  the  purpose  for  which  they  are 
convened. 

M  S— 22 


338  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

Sec.  8.  The  governor  shall  take  care  that  the  laws  be 
distributed,  and  faithfully  executed;  and  he  shall  be  a  con- 
servator of  the  peace  throughout  the  state. 

Sec.  9.  When  any  office  shall  become  vacant,  the  governor 
shall  appoint  a  person  to  fill  such  vacancy,  who  shall  continue 
in  office  until  a  successor  be  duly  appointed  and  qualified  ac- 
cording to  law. 

Sec.  10.  Every  bill  which  shall  have  been  passed  by  both 
houses  of  the  general  assembly,  shall,  before  it  becomes  a  law, 
be  presented  to  the  governor  for  his  approbation.  If  he  ap- 
prove, he  shall  sign  it;  if  not,  he  shall  return  it,  with  his  ob- 
jections, to  the  house  in  which  it  shall  have  originated,  and  the 
house  shall  cause  the  objections  to  be  entered  at  large  on  its 
journals,  and  shall  proceed  to  reconsider  the  bill.  If,  after 
such  reconsideration,  a  majority  of  all  the  members  elected  to 
that  house  shall  agree  to  pass  the  same,  it  shall  be  sent,  to- 
gether with  the  objections,  to  the  other  house,  by  which  it  shall 
be  in  like  manner  reconsidered,  and,  if  approved  by  a  majority 
of  all  the  members  elected  to  that  house,  it  shall  become  a  law. 
In  all  such  cases  the  votes  of  both  houses  shall  be  taken  by  yeas 
and  nays,  and  the  names  of  the  members  voting  for  and  against 
the  bill  shall  be  entered  on  the  journal  of  each  house,  respectively. 
If  any  bill  shall  not  be  returned  by  the  governor  within  ten  days 
(Sundays  excepted)  after  it  shall  have  been  presented  to  him, 
the  same  shall  become  a  law  in  like  manner  as  if  the  governor 
had  signed  it,  unless  the  general  assembly,  by  its  adjournment, 
shall  prevent  its  return,  in  which  case  it  shall  not  become  a  law. 

Sec.  11.  Every  resolution  to  which  the  concurrence  of 
the  senate  and  house  of  representatives  may  be  necessary, 
except  on  cases  of  adjournment,  shall  be  presented  to  the 
governor,  and,  before  the  same  shall  take  effect,  shall  be  pro- 
ceeded upon  in  the  same  manner  as  in  the  case  of  a  bill. 

Sec.  12.  There  shall  be  an  auditor  of  public  accounts, 
whom  the  governor,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
senate,  shall  appoint.  He  shall  continue  in  office  for  four 
years,  and  shall  perform  such  duties  as  may  be  prescribed  by 
law.     His  office  shall  be  kept  at  the  seat  of  government. 


Missouri  Constitution  of  1820,  339 

Sec.  13.  The  governor  shall,  at  stated  times,  receive  for 
his  services  an  adequate  salary,  to  be  fixed  by  law,  which  shall 
neither  be  increased  or  diminished  during  his  continuance  in 
office,  and  which  shall  never  be  less  than  two  thousand  dollars 
annually. 

Sec.  14.  There  shall  be  a  lieutenant  governor,  who  shall 
be  elected  at  the  same  time,  in  the  same  manner,  for  the  same 
term,  and  shall  possess  the  same  qualifications,  as  the  governor. 
The  electors  shall  distinguish  for  whom  they  vote  as  governor, 
and  for  whom  as  lieutenant  governor. 

Sec.  15.  The  lieutenant  governor  shall,  by  virtue  of  his 
office,  be  president  of  the  senate.  In  committee  of  the  whole 
he  may  debate  on  all  questions;  and  when  there  is  an  equal 
division,  he  shall  give  the  casting  vote  in  senate,  and  also  in 
joint  votes  of  both  houses. 

Sec.  16.  When  the  office  of  governor  shall  become  vacant 
by  death,  resignation,  absence  from  the  state,  removal  from 
office,  refusal  to  qualify,  impeachment,  or  otherwise,  the  lieu- 
tenant governor,  or  in  case  of  like  disability  on  his  part,  the 
president  of  the  senate  pro  tempore,  or,  if  there  be  no  president 
of  the  senate  pro  tempore,  the  speaker  of  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives, shall  possess  all  the  powers,  and  discharge  all  the 
duties,  of  governor,  and  shall  receive  for  his  services  the  like 
compensation,  until  such  vacancy  be  filled,  or  the  governor  so 
absent  or  impeached  shall  return  or  be  acquitted. 

Sec.  17.  Whenever  the  office  of  governor  shall  become 
vacant,  by  death,  resignation,  removal  from  office,  or  otherwise, 
the  lieutenant  governor,  or  other  person  exercising  the  powers 
of  governor  for  the  time  being,  shall,  as  soon  as  may  be,  cause 
an  election  to  be  held  to  fill  such  vacancy,  giving  three  months* 
previous  notice  thereof;  and  the  person  elected  shall  not  thereby 
be  rendered  ineligible  to  the  office  of  governor  for  the  next 
succeeding  term.  Nevertheless,  if  such  vacancy  shall  happen 
within  eighteen  months  of  the  end  of  the  term  for  which  the  late 
governor  shall  have  been  elected,  the  same  shall  not  be  filled. 

Sec.  18.  The  lieutenant  governor,  or  president  of  the 
senate  pro  tempore,  while  presiding  in  the  senate,  shall  receive 


340  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

the  same  compensation  as  shall  be  allowed  to  the  speaker  of 
the  house  of  representatives. 

Sec.  19.  The  returns  of  all  elections  of  governor  and 
lieutenant  governor  shall  be  made  to  the  secretary  of  state,  in 
such  manner  as  may  be  prescribed  by  law. 

Sec.  20.  Contested  elections  of  governor  and  lieutenant 
governor  shall  be  decided  by  joint  vote  of  both  houses  of  the 
general  assembly,  in  such  manner  as  may  be  prescribed  by 
law. 

Sec.  21.  There  shall  be  a  secretary  of  state,  whom  the 
governor,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  senate, 
shall  appoint.  He  shall  hold  his  office  four  years,  unless  sooner 
removed  on  impeachment.  He  shall  keep  a  register  of  all  the 
official  acts  and  proceedings  of  the  governor,  and  when  neces- 
sary shall  attest  them;  and  he  shall  lay  the  same,  together  with 
all  papers  relative  thereto,  before  either  house  of  the  general 
assembly,  whenever  required  so  to  do,  and  shall  perform  such 
other  duties  as  may  be  enjoined  on  him  by  law. 

Sec.  22.  The  secretary  of  state  shall,  as  soon  as  may  be, 
procure  a  seal  of  state,  with  such  emblems  and  devices  as  shall 
be  directed  by  law,  which  shall  not  be  subject  to  change.  It 
shall  be  called  the  "Great  Seal  of  the  State  of  Missouri,"  shall 
be  kept  by  the  secretary  of  state,  and  all  official  acts  of  the 
governor,  his  approbation  of  the  laws  excepted,  shall  be  thereby 
authenticated. 

Sec.  23.  There  shall  be  appointed  in  each  county  a  sheriff 
and  a  coroner,  who,  until  the  general  assembly  shall  otherwise 
provide,  shall  be  elected  by  the  qualified  electors  at  the  time 
and  place  of  electing  representatives.  They  shall  serve  for  two 
years,  and  until  a  successor  be  duly  appointed  and  qualified, 
unless  sooner  removed  for  misdemeanor  in  office,  and  shall  be 
ineligible  four  years  in  any  period  of  eight  years.  The  sheriff 
and  coroner  shall  each  give  security  for  the  faithful  discharge 
of  the  duties  of  his  office,  in  such  manner  as  shall  be  proscribed 
by  law.  Whenever  a  county  shall  be  hereafter  established, 
the  governor  shall  appoint  a  sheriff  and  coroner  therein,  who 
shall  each  continue  in  office  until  the  next  succeeding  general 
election,  and  until  a  successor  shall  be  duly  qualified. 


Missouri  Constitution  of  1820.  341 

Sec.  24.  When  vacancies  happen  in  the  office  of  sheriff 
or  coroner,  they  shall  be  filled  by  appointment  of  the  governor; 
and  the  persons  so  appointed  shall  continue  in  office  until 
successors  shall  be  duly  qualified,  and  shall  not  be  thereby 
rendered  ineligible  for  the  next  succeeding  term. 

Sec.  25.  In  all  elections  of  sheriff  and  coroner,  when  two 
or  more  persons  have  an  equal  number  of  votes,  and  a  higher 
number  than  any  other  person,  the  circuit  courts  of  the  counties, 
respectively,  shall  give  the  casting  vote;  and  all  contested 
elections  for  the  said  offices  shall  be  decided  by  the  circuit 
courts,  respectively,  in  such  manner  as  the  general  assembly 
may  by  law  prescribe. 

Article  V.     Of  the  Judicial  Power. 

Sec.  1.  The  Judicial  powers,  as  to  matters  of  law  and 
equity,  shall  be  vested  in  a  "supreme  court,"  in  a  "chancellor," 
in  "circuit  courts,"  and  in  such  inferior  tribunals  as  the  general 
assembly  may,  from  time  to  time,  ordain  and  establish. 

Sec.  2.  The  supreme  court,  except  in  cases  otherwise 
directed  by  this  constitution,  shall  have  appellate  jurisdiction 
only,  which  shall  be  co-extensive  with  the  state,  under  the 
restrictions  and  limitations  in  this  constitution  provided. 

Sec.  3.  The  supreme  court  shall  have  a  general  superin- 
tending control  over  all  inferior  courts  of  law.  It  shall  have 
power  to  issue  writs  of  habeas  corpus,  mandamus,  quo  war- 
ranto, certiorari,  and  other  original  remedial  writs,  and  to  hear 
and  determine  the  same. 

Sec.  4.  The  supreme  court  shall  consist  of  three  judges, 
any  two  of  whom  shall  be  a  quorum;  and  the  said  judges  shall 
be  conservators  of  the  peace  throughout  the  state. 

Sec.  5.  The  state  shall  be  divided  into  convenient  dis- 
tricts, not  to  exceed  four,  in  each  of  which  the  supreme  court 
shall  hold  two  sessions  annually,  at  such  place  as  the  general 
assembly  shall  appoint;  and,  when  sitting  in  either  district,  it 
shall  exercise  jurisdiction  over  causes  originating  in  that  dis- 
trict only:  Provided,  however,  that  the  general  assembly  may, 
at  any  time  hereafter,  direct,  by  law,  that  the  said  court  shall 
be  held  at  one  place  only. 


342  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

Sec.  6.  The  circuit  court  shall  have  jurisdiction  over  all 
criminal  cases  which  shall  not  be  otherwise  provided  for  by  law, 
and  exclusive  original  jurisdiction  in  all  civil  cases  which  shall 
not  be  cognizable  before  justices  of  the  peace,  until  otherwise 
directed  by  the  general  assembly.  It  shall  hold  its  terms  in 
such  place  in  each  county  as  may  be  by  law  directed. 

Sec.  7.  The  state  shall  be  divided  into  convenient  cir- 
cuits, for  each  of  which  a  judge  shall  be  appointed,  who,  after 
his  appointment,  shall  reside,  and  be  a  conservator  of  the  peace, 
within  the  circuit  for  which  he  shall  be  appointed. 

Sec.  8.  The  circuit  courts  shall  exercise  a  superintending 
control  over  all  such  inferior  tribunals  as  the  general  assembly 
may  establish,  and  over  justices  of  the  peace  in  each  county 
in  their  respective  circuits. 

Sec.  9.  The  jurisdiction  of  the  court  of  chancery  shall  be 
co-extensive  with  the  state,  and  the  times  and  places  of  holding 
its  sessions  shall  be  regulated  in  the  same  manner  as  those  of 
the  supreme  court. 

Sec.  10.  The  court  of  chancery  shall  have  original  and 
appellate  jurisdiction  in  all  matters  of  equity,  and  a  general 
control  over  executors,  administrators,  guardians,  and  minors, 
subject  to  appeal,  in  all  cases,  to  the  supreme  court,  under  such 
limitations  as  the  general  assembly  may,  by  law,  provide. 

Sec.  11.  Until  the  general  assembly  shall  deem  it  expedient 
to  establish  inferior  courts  of  chancery,  the  circuit  courts  shall 
have  jurisdiction  in  matters  of  equity,  subject  to  appeal  to  the 
court  of  chancery,  in  such  manner,  and  under  such  restrictions, 
as  shall  be  prescribed  by  law. 

Sec.  12.  Inferior  tribunals  shall  be  established  in  each 
county  for  the  transaction  of  all  county  business;  for  appointing 
guardians;  for  granting  letters  testamentary,  and  of  adminis- 
tration; and  for  settling  the  accounts  of  executors,  adminis- 
trators, and  guardians. 

Sec.  13.  The  governor  shall  nominate,  and,  by  and  with 
the  advice  and  consent  of  the  senate,  appoint,  the  judges  of  the 
supreme  court,  the  judges  of  the  circuit  courts,  and  the  chan- 
cellor, each  of  whom  shall  hold  his  office  during  good  behavior, 
and  shall  receive  for  his  services  a  compensation,  which  shall 


Missouri  Constitution  of  1820.  343 

not  be  diminished  during  his  continuance  in  office,  and  which 
shall  not  be  less  than  two  thousand  dollars  annually. 

Sec.  14.  No  person  shall  be  appointed  a  judge  of  the 
supreme  court,  nor  of  a  circuit  court,  nor  chancellor,  before  he 
shall  have  attained  to  the  age  of  thirty  years;  nor  shall  any 
person  continue  to  exercise  the  duties  of  any  of  said  offices  after 
he  shall  have  attained  to  the  age  of  sixty-five  years. 

Sec.  15.  The  courts,  respectively,  shall  appoint  their 
clerks,  who  shall  hold  their  offices  during  good  behavior.  For 
any  misdemeanor  in  office  they  shall  be  liable  to  be  tried  and 
removed  by  the  supreme  court,  in  such  manner  as  the  general 
assembly  shall  by  law  provide. 

Sec.  16.  Any  judge  of  the  supreme  court,  or  of  the  circuit 
court,  or  the  chancellor,  may  be  removed  from  office  on  the 
address  of  two-thirds  of  each  house  of  the  general  assembly  to 
the  governor  for  that  purpose;  but  each  house  shall  state,  on  its 
respective  journal,  the  cause  for  which  it  shall  wish  the  removal 
of  such  judge  or  chancellor,  and  give  him  notice  thereof;  and  he 
shall  have  the  right  to  be  heard  in  his  defence  in  such  manner 
as  the  general  assembly  shall  by  law  direct;  but  no  judge  nor 
chancellor  shall  be  removed  in  this  manner  for  any  cause  for 
which  he  might  have  been  impeached. 

Sec.  17.  In  each  county  there  shall  be  appointed  as  many 
justices  of  the  peace  as  the  public  good  may  be  thought  to 
require.  Their  powers  and  duties,  and  their  duration  in  office, 
shall  be  regulated  by  law. 

Sec.  18.  An  attorney  general  shall  be  appointed  by  the 
governor,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  senate. 
He  shall  remain  in  office  four  years,  and  shall  perform  such 
duties  as  shall  be  required  of  him  by  law. 

Sec.  19.  All  writs  and  process  shall  run,  and  all  prosecu- 
tions shall  be  conducted,  in  the  name  of  the  "State  of  Missouri;" 
all  writs  shall  be  tested  by  the  clerk  of  the  court  from  which 
they  shall  be  issued,  and  all  indictments  shall  conclude,  "against 
the  peace  and  dignity  of  the  state." 


344  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

Article  VI.    Of  Education. 

Sec.  1.  Schools,  and  the  means  of  education,  shall  forever 
be  encouraged  in  this  state;  and  the  general  assembly  shall 
take  measures  to  preserve,  from  waste  or  damage,  such  lands 
as  have  been,  or  may  hereafter  be,  granted  by  the  United  States 
for  the  use  of  schools  within  each  township  in  this  state,  and 
shall  apply  the  funds,  which  may  arise  from  such  lands,  in  strict 
conformity  to  the  object  of  the  grant,  and  one  school,  or  more, 
shall  be  established  in  each  township  as  soon  as  practicable 
and  necessary,  where  the  poor  shall  be  taught  gratis. 

Sec.  2.  The  general  assembly  shall  take  measures  for  the 
improvement  of  such  lands  as  have  been,  or  hereafter  may  be, 
granted  by  the  United  States  to  this  state  for  the  support  of  a 
seminary  of  learning;  and  the  funds  accruing  from  such  lands, 
by  rent  or  lease,  or  in  any  other  manner,  or  which  may  be  ob- 
tained from  any  other  source,  for  the  purposes  aforesaid,  shall 
be  and  remain  a  permanent  fund  to  support  a  university  for 
the  promotion  of  literature,  and  of  the  arts  and  sciences;  and 
it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  general  assembly,  as  soon  as  may  be, 
to  provide  effectual  means  for  the  improvement  of  such  lands, 
and  for  the  improvement  and  permanent  security  of  the  funds 
and  endowments  of  such  institution. 

Article  VII.    Of  Internal  Improvement. 

Internal  improvement  shall  forever  be  encouraged  by  the 
government  of  this  state;  and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  general 
assembly,  as  soon  as  may  be,  to  make  provision  by  law  for 
ascertaining  the  most  proper  objects  of  improvement,  in  relation 
both  to  roads  and  navigable  waters;  and  it  shall  also  be  their 
duty  to  provide  by  law  for  a  systematic  and  economical  appli- 
cation of  the  funds  appropriated  to  those  objects. 

Article  VIII.     Of  Banks. 

The  general  assembly  may  incorporate  one  banking  com- 
pany, and  no  more,  to  be  in  operation  at  the  same  time.  The 
bank  to  be  incorporated  may  have  any  number  of  branches, 
not  to  exceed  five,  to  be  established  by  law;  and  not  more  than 


Missouri  Constitution  of  1820.  345 

one  branch  shall  be  established  at  any  one  session  of  the  general 
assembly.  The  capital  stock  of  the  bank  to  be  incorporated 
shall  never  exceed  five  millions  of  dollars  at  least  one-half  of 
which  shall  be  reserved  for  the  use  of  the  state. 

Article  IX.     Of  the  Militia. 

Sec.  1.  Field  officers  and  company  officers  shall  be  elected 
by  the  persons  subject  to  militia  duty  within  their  respective 
commands;  brigadiers  general  shall  be  elected  by  the  field 
officers  of  their  respective  brigades;  and  majors  general  by  the 
brigadiers  and  field  officers  of  their  respective  divisions,  until 
otherwise  directed  by  law. 

Sec.  2.  General  and  field  officers  shall  appoint  their 
officers  of  the  staff. 

Sec.  3.  The  governor  shall  appoint  an  adjutant  general, 
and  all  other  militia  officers,  whose  appointments  are  not  other- 
wise provided  for  in  this  constitution. 

Article  X.    Of  Miscellaneous  Provisions. 

Sec.  1.  The  general  assembly  of  this  state  shall  never 
interfere  with  the  primary  disposal  of  the  soil  by  the  United 
States,  nor  with  any  regulation  Congress  may  find  necessary 
for  securing  the  title  in  such  soil  to  the  bona  fide  purchasers. 
No  tax  shall  be  imposed  on  lands  the  property  of  the  United 
States,  nor  shall  lands  belonging  to  persons  residing  out  of  the 
limits  of  this  state  ever  be  taxed  higher  than  the  lands  belonging 
to  persons  residing  within  the  state. 

Sec.  2.  The  state  shall  have  concurrent  jurisdiction  on 
the  river  Mississippi,  and  on  every  other  river  bordering  on  the 
said  state,  so  far  as  the  said  river  shall  form  a  common  boundary 
to  the  said  state,  and  any  other  state  or  states,  now,  or  hereafter 
to  be,  formed  and  bounded  by  the  same;  and  the  said  river 
Mississippi,  and  the  navigable  rivers  and  waters  leading  into  the 
same,  whether  bordering  on  or  within  this  state,  shall  be  common 
highways,  and  forever  free  to  the  citizens  of  this  state  and  of 
the  United  States,  without  any  tax,  duty,  impost,  or  toll, 
therefor,  imposed  by  the  state. 


346  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

Article  XI.  Of  the  Permanent  Seat  of  Government. 

Sec.  1.  The  general  assembly,  at  their  first  session,  shall 
appoint  five  commissioners,  for  the  purpose  of  selecting  a  place 
for  the  permanent  seat  of  government,  whose  duty  it  shall  be 
to  select  four  sections  of  the  land  of  the  United  States,  which 
shall  not  have  been  exposed  to  public  sale. 

Sec.  2.  If  the  commissioners  believe  the  four  sections  of 
land  so  by  them  to  be  selected,  be  not  a  suitable  and  proper 
situation  for  the  permanent  seat  of  government,  they  shall 
select  such  other  place  as  they  deem  most  proper  for  that  pur- 
pose, and  report  the  same  to  the  general  assembly  at  the  time  of 
making  their  report,  provided  for  in  the  first  section  of  this  ar- 
ticle; provided,  that  no  place  shall  be  selected  which  is  not 
situated  on  the  bank  of  the  Missouri  river,  and  within  forty 
miles  of  the  mouth  of  the  river  Osage. 

Sec.  3.  If  the  general  assembly  determine  that  the  four 
sections  of  land,  which  may  be  selected  by  authority  of  the 
first  section  of  this  article,  be  a  suitable  and  proper  place  for 
the  permanent  seat  of  government,  the  said  commissioners 
shall  lay  out  a  town  thereon,  under  the  direction  of  the  general 
assembly;  but,  if  the  general  assembly  deem  it  most  expedient 
to  fix  the  permanent  seat  of  government  at  the  place  to  be 
selected  by  authority  of  the  second  section  of  this  article,  they 
shall  so  determine,  and,  in  that  event,  shall  authorize  the  said 
commissioners  to  purchase  any  quantity  of  land,  not  exceeding 
six  hundred  and  forty  acres,  which  may  be  necessary  for  the 
purpose  aforesaid;  and  the  place  so  selected  shall  be  the  per- 
manent seat  of  government  of  this  state,  from  and  after  the  first 
day  of  October,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  twenty-six. 

Sec.  4.  The  general  assembly,  in  selecting  the  above 
mentioned  commissioners,  shall  choose  one  from  each  extreme 
part  of  the  state,  and  one  from  the  centre,  and  it  shall  require 
the  concurrence  of  at  least  three  of  the  commissioners  to  decide 
upon  any  part  of  the  duties  assigned  them. 


Missouri  Constitution  of  1820.  347 

Article  XII.     Mode  of  Amending  the  Coxstitution. 

The  general  assembly  may,  at  any  time,  propose  such 
amendments  to  this  constitution  as  two-thirds  of  each  house 
shall  deem  expedient,  which  shall  be  published  in  all  the  news- 
papers published  in  this  state,  three  several  times,  at  least 
twelve  months  before  the  next  general  election;  and  if,  at  the 
first  session  of  the  general  assembly,  after  such  general  election, 
two-thirds  of  each  house  shall,  by  yeas  and  nays,  ratify  such 
proposed  amendments,  they  shall  be  valid  to  all  intents  and 
purposes,  as  parts  of  this  constitution;  provided,  that  such 
proposed  amendments  shall  be  read  on  three  several  days,  in 
each  house,  as  well  when  the  same  are  proposed,  as  when  they 
are  finally  ratified. 

Article  XIII.     Declaration  of  Rights. 

That  the  general,  great,  and  essential  principles  of  liberty 
and  free  government  may  be  recognized  and  established,  we 
declare, 

1.  That  all  political  power  is  vested  in,  and  derived 
from,  the  people. 

2.  That  the  people  of  this  state  have  the  inherent,  sole, 
and  exclusive  right  of  regulating  the  internal  government  and 
police  thereof,  and  of  altering  and  abolishing  their  constitution 
and  form  of  government,  whenever  it  may  be  necessary  to  their 
safety  and  happiness. 

3.  That  the  people  have  the  right  peaceably  to  assemble 
for  their  common  good,  and  to  apply  to  those  vested  with  the 
powers  of  government  for  redress  of  grievances,  by  petition  or 
remonstrance;  and  that  their  right  to  bear  arms,  in  defence  of 
themselves  and  of  the  state,  cannot  be  questioned. 

4.  That  all  men  have  a  natural  and  indefeasible  right  to 
worship  Almighty  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  their  own 
consciences;  that  no  man  can  be  compelled  to  erect,  support, 
or  attend  any  place  of  worship,  or  to  maintain  any  minister  of 
the  gospel,  or  teacher  of  religion;  that  no  human  authority  can 
control  or  interfere  with  the  rights  of  conscience;  that  no  person 
can  ever  be  hurt,  molested,  or  restrained  in  his  religious  pro- 


348  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

fession  or  sentiments,  if  he  do  not  disturb  others  in  their  re- 
ligious worship. 

5.  That  no  person,  on  account  of  his  reHgious  opinions, 
can  be  rendered  ineHgible  to  any  office  of  trust  or  profit  under 
this  state;  that  no  preference  can  ever  be  given  by  law  to  any 
sect  or  mode  of  worship;  and  that  no  religious  corporation  can 
ever  be  established  in  this  state. 

6.  That  all  elections  shall  be  free  and  equal. 

7.  That  courts  of  justice  ought  to  be  open  to  every  person, 
and  certain  remedy  afforded  for  every  injury  to  person,  property, 
or  character;  and  that  right  and  justice  ought  to  be  administered 
without  sale,  denial,  or  delay;  and  that  no  private  property 
ought  to  be  taken  or  applied  to  public  use  without  just  com- 
pensation. 

8.  That  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  shall  remain  inviolate. 

9.  That,  in  all  criminal  prosecutions,  the  accused  has  the 
right  to  be  heard  by  himself  and  his  counsel;  to  demand  the 
nature  and  cause  of  accusation;  to  have  compulsory  process 
for  witnesses  in  his  favor;  to  meet  the  witnesses  against  him 
face  to  face;  and,  in  prosecutions  on  presentment  or  indictment, 
to  a  speedy  trial  by  an  impartial  jury  of  the  vicinage;  that  the 
accused  cannot  be  compelled  to  give  evidence  against  himself, 
nor  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property,  but  by  the  judg- 
ment of  his  peers  or  the  law  of  the  land. 

10.  That  no  person,  after  having  been  once  acquitted  by 
a  jury,  can,  for  the  same  offence,  be  again  put  in  jeopardy  of 
life  or  limb,  but  if,  in  any  criminal  prosecution,  the  jury  be 
divided  in  opinion  at  the  end  of  the  term,  the  court  before  which 
the  trial  shall  be  had,  may,  in  its  discretion,  discharge  the  jury, 
and  commit  or  bail  the  accused  for  trial  at  the  next  term  of 
such  court. 

11.  That  all  persons  shall  be  bailable  by  sufficient  sureties, 
except  for  capital  ofTenccs,  when  the  proof  is  evident  or  the 
presumption  great,  and  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  cannot  be  suspended,  unless  when,  in  case  of  rebellion 
or  invasion,  the  public  safety  may  require  it. 

12.  That  excessive  bail  shall  not  be  required,  nor  excessive 
fines  imposed,  nor  cruel  and  unusual  punishments  inflicted. 


Missouri  Constitution  of  IS 20.  349 

13.  That  the  people  ought  to  be  secure  in  their  persons, 
papers,  houses,  and  effects,  from  unreasonable  searches  and 
seizures;  and  no  warrant  to  search  any  place  or  to  seize  any 
person  or  thing  can  issue,  without  describing  the  place  to  be 
searched,  or  the  person  or  thing  to  be  seized,  as  nearly  as  may 
be,  nor  without  probable  cause,  supported  by  oath  or  affirma- 
tion. 

14.  That  no  person  can,  for  an  indictable  offence,  be  pro- 
ceeded against  criminally  by  information,  except  in  cases 
arising  in  the  land  or  naval  forces,  or  in  the  militia  when  in 
actual  service  in  time  of  war  or  public  danger,  or,  by  leave  of 
the  court,  for  oppression  or  misdemeanor  in  office. 

15.  That  treason  against  the  state  can  consist  only  in 
levying  war  against  it,  or  in  adhering  to  its  enemies,  giving  them 
aid  and  comfort;  that  no  person  can  be  convicted  of  treason 
unless  on  the  testimony  of  two  witnesses  to  the  same  overt 
act,  or  on  his  own  confession  in  open  court;  that  no  person  can 
be  attainted  of  treason  or  felony  by  the  general  assembly;  that 
no  conviction  can  work  corruption  of  blood  or  forfeiture  of 
estate;  that  the  estates  of  such  persons  as  may  destroy  their 
own  lives  shall  descend  or  vest  as  in  cases  of  natural  death; 
and  when  any  person  shall  be  killed  by  casualty  there  ought 
to  be  no  forfeiture  by  reason  thereof. 

16.  That  the  free  communication  of  thoughts  and  opin- 
ions is  one  of  the  invaluable  rights  of  man,  and  that  every 
person  may  freely  speak,  write,  and  print,  on  any  subject, 
being  responsible  for  the  abuse  of  that  liberty.  That,  in  all 
prosecutions  for  libels,  the  truth  thereof  may  be  given  in  evi- 
dence, and  the  jury  may  determine  the  law  and  the  facts,  under 
the  direction  of  the  court. 

17.  That  no  ex-post  facto  law,  nor  law  impairing  the 
obligation  of  contracts,  or  retrospective  in  its  operation,  can 
be  passed;  nor  can  the  person  of  a  debtor  be  imprisoned  for 
debt  after  he  shall  have  surrendered  his  property  for  the  benefit 
of  his  creditors  in  such  manner  as  may  be  prescribed  by  law. 

18.  That  no  person  who  is  religiously  scrupulous  of 
bearing  arms  can  be  compelled  to  do  so,  but  may  be  compelled 
to  pay  an  equivalent  for  military  service  in  such  manner  as 


350  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

shall  be  prescribed  by  law;  and  that  no  priest,  preacher  of  the 
gospel,  or  teacher  of  any  religious  persuasion  or  sect,  regularly 
ordained  as  such,  be  subject  to  militia  duty,  or  compelled  to 
bear  arms. 

19.  That  all  property  subject  to  taxation  in  this  state 
shall  be  taxed  in  proportion  to  its  value. 

20.  That  no  title  of  nobility,  hereditary  emolument, 
privilege,  or  distinction,  shall  be  granted;  nor  any  office  created 
the  duration  of  which  shall  be  longer  than  the  good  behavior 
of  the  officer  appointed  to  fill  the  same. 

21.  That  migration  from  this  state  cannot  be  prohibited. 

22.  That  the  military  is,  and,  in  all  cases,  and  at  all 
times,  shall  be,  in  strict  subordination  to  the  civil  power;  that 
no  soldier  can,  in  time  of  peace,  be  quartered  in  any  house 
without  the  consent  of  the  owner,  nor  in  time  of  war,  but  in 
such  manner  as  may  be  prescribed  by  law;  nor  can  any  appro- 
priation for  the  support  of  an  army  be  made  for  a  longer  period 
than  two  years. 

Schedule. 

Sec.  1.  That  no  inconvenience  may  arise  from  the  change 
of  government,  we  declare,  that  all  writs,  actions,  prosecutions, 
judgments,  claims,  and  contracts,  of  individuals,  and  of  bodies 
corporate,  shall  continue  as  if  no  change  had  taken  place; 
and  all  process  which  may,  before  the  third  Monday  in  September 
next,  be  issued  under  the  authority  of  the  Territory  of  Missouri, 
shall  be  as  valid  as  if  issued  in  the  name  of  the  state. 

Sec.  2.  All  laws  now  in  force  in  the  Territory  of  Missouri, 
which  are  not  repugnant  to  this  constitution,  shall  remain  in 
force  until  they  expire  by  their  own  limitations,  or  be  altered 
or  repealed  by  the  general  assembly. 

Sec.  3.  All  fines,  penalties,  forfeitures,  and  escheats, 
accruing  to  the  Territory  of  Missouri,  shall  accrue  to  the  use 
of  the  state. 

Sec.  4.  All  recognizances  heretofore  taken,  or  which  may 
be  taken  before  the  third  Monday  in  September  next,  shall 
remain  valid,  and  shall  pass  over  to,  and  may  be  prosecuted  in, 
the  name  of  the  state;  and  all  bonds  executed  to  the  governor 


Missouri  Constitution  of  1820.  351 

of  the  territory,  or  to  any  other  officer  or  court,  in  his  official 
capacity,  shall  pass  over  to  the  governor,  or  other  proper  state 
authority,  and  to  their  successors  in  office,  for  the  uses  therein 
respectively  expressed,  and  may  be  sued  for  and  recovered  ac- 
cordingly. All  criminal  prosecutions  and  penal  actions,  which 
have  arisen,  or  which  may  arise  before  the  third  Monday  in 
September  next,  and  which  shall  then  be  depending,  shall  be 
prosecuted  to  judgment  and  execution  in  the  name  of  the  state. 
All  actions  at  law  which  now  are,  or  which,  on  the  third  Monday 
in  September  next,  may  be,  depending  in  any  of  the  courts  of 
record,  in  the  Territory  of  Missouri,  may  be  commenced  in,  or 
transferred  to,  any  court  of  record  of  the  state  which  shall  have 
jurisdiction  of  the  subject  matter  thereof;  and  all  suits  in  equity 
may,  in  like  manner,  be  commenced  in,  or  transferred  to,  the 
court  of  chancery. 

Sec.  5.  All  officers,  civil  and  military,  now  holding  com- 
missions under  authority  of  the  United  States,  or  of  the  ter- 
ritory of  Missouri,  shall  continue  to  hold  and  exercise  their 
respective  offfces  until  they  shall  be  superceded  under  the 
authority  of  the  state;  and  all  such  officers  holding  commissions 
under  the  authority  of  the  territory  of  Missouri,  shall  receive 
the  same  compensation  which  they  have  hitherto  received,  in 
proportion  to  the  time  they  shall  be  so  employed. 

Sec.  6.  The  first  meeting  of  the  general  assembly  shall  be 
at  St.  Louis,  with  power  to  adjourn  to  any  other  place;  and  the 
general  assembly,  at  the  first  session  thereof,  shall  fix  the  seat 
of  government  until  the  first  day  of  October,  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  twenty-six;  and  the  first  session  of  the  general 
assembly  shall  have  power  to  fix  the  compensation  of  the  members 
thereof;  any  thing  in  the  constitution  to  the  contrary  notwith- 
standing. 

Sec.  7.  Until  the  first  enumeration  shall  be  made,  as 
directed  in  this  constitution,  the  county  of  Howard  shall  be 
entitled  to  eight  representatives;  the  county  of  Cooper  to  four 
representatives;  the  county  of  Montgomery  to  two  representa- 
tives; the  county  of  Lincoln  to  one  representative;  the  county 
of  Pike  to  two  representatives;  the  county  of  St.  Charles  to 
three   representatives;   the   county   of   St.    Louis   to   six   repre- 


352  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

sentatives;  the  county  of  Franklin  to  two  representatives;  the 
county  of  Jefferson  to  one  representative;  the  county  of  Wash- 
ington to  two  representatives;  the  county  of  Ste.  Genevieve  to 
four  representatives;  the  county  of  Cape  Girardeau  to  four 
representatives;  the  county  of  New  Madrid  to  two  repre- 
sentatives; the  county  of  Madison  to  one  representative;  the 
county  of  Wayne  to  one  representative;  and  that  part  of  the 
county  of  Lawrence  situated  within  this  state  shall  attach  to, 
and  form  part  of,  the  county  of  Wayne,  until  otherwise  pro- 
vided by  law,  and  the  sheriff  of  the  county  of  Wayne  shall 
appoint  the  judges  of  the  first  election,  and  the  place  of  holding 
the  same,  in  the  part  thus  attached;  and  any  person  who  shall 
have  resided  within  the  limits  of  this  state  five  months  previous 
to  the  adoption  of  this  constitution,  and  who  shall  be  otherwise 
qualified,  as  prescribed  in  the  third  section  of  the  third  article 
thereof,  shall  be  eligible  to  the  house  of  representatives,  any 
thing  in  this  constitution  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

Sec.  8.  For  the  first  election  of  senators,  the  state  shall 
be  divided  into  districts,  and  the  apportionment  shall  be  as 
follows;  that  is  to  say:  the  counties  of  Howard  and  Cooper  shall 
compose  one  district,  and  elect  four  senators;  the  counties  of 
Montgomery  and  Franklin  shall  compose  one  district,  and  elect 
one  senator;  the  county  of  St.  Charles  shall  compose  one  dis- 
trict, and  elect  one  senator;  the  counties  of  Lincoln  and  Pike 
shall  compose  one  district,  and  elect  one  senator;  the  county 
of  St.  Louis  shall  compose  one  district,  and  elect  two  senators; 
the  counties  of  Washington  and  Jefferson  shall  compose  one 
district,  and  elect  one  senator;  the  county  of  St.  Genevieve 
shall  compose  one  district  and  elect  one  senator;  the  counties 
of  Madison  and  Wayne  shall  compose  one  district,  and  elect  one 
senator;  the  counties  of  Cape  Girardeau  and  New  Madrid  shall 
compose  one  district,  and  elect  two  senators;  and,  in  all  cases 
where  a  senatorial  district  consists  of  more  than  one  county, 
it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  clerk  of  the  county  second  named  in 
that  district  to  certify  the  returns  of  the  senatorial  election 
within  their  proper  county  to  the  clerk  of  the  county  first 
named,  within  five  days  after  he  shall  have  received  the  same; 
and  any  person  who  shall  have  resided  within  the  limits  of  this 


Missouri  ConstittUion  of  1820.  353 

state  five  months  previous  to  the  adoption  of  this  constitution, 
and  who  shall  be  otherwise  qualified,  as  prescribed  in  the  fifth 
section  of  the  third  article  thereof,  shall  be  eligible  to  the  senate 
of  this  state,  any  thing  in  this  constitution  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding. 

Sec.  9.  The  president  of  the  convention  shall  issue  writs  of 
election  to  the  sheriffs  of  the  several  counties,  (or,  in  case  of 
vacancy,  to  the  coroners,)  requiring  them  to  cause  an  election 
to  be  held,  on  the  fourth  Monday  in  August  next,  for  a  gov- 
ernor, a  lieutenant  governor,  a  representative  in  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  for  the  residue  of  the  sixteenth  Congress, 
a  representative  for  the  seventeenth  Congress,  senators  and 
representatives  for  the  general  assembly,  sheriffs,  and  coroners; 
and  the  returns  of  all  township  elections,  held  in  pursuance 
thereof,  shall  be  made  to  the  clerk  of  the  proper  county,  within 
five  days  after  the  day  of  election;  and  any  person  who  shall 
reside  within  the  limits  of  this  state  at  the  time  of  the  adoption 
of  this  constitution,  and  who  shall  be  otherwise  qualified,  as 
prescribed  in  the  tenth  section  of  the  third  article  thereof,  shall 
be  deemed  a  qualified  elector,  any  thing  in  this  constitution 
to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

Sec.  10.  The  elections  shall  be  conducted  according  to 
the  existing  laws  of  the  Missouri  territory.  The  clerks  of  the 
circuit  courts  of  the  several  counties  shall  certify  the  returns 
of  the  election  of  governor  and  lieutenant  governor,  and  trans- 
mit the  same  to  the  speaker  of  the  house  of  representatives, 
at  the  temporary  seat  of  government,  in  such  time  that  they 
may  be  received  on  the  third  Monday  of  September  next.  As 
soon  as  the  general  assembly  shall  be  organized,  the  speaker  of 
the  house  of  representatives  and  the  president,  pro  tempore, 
of  the  senate  shall,  in  the  presence  of  both  houses,  examine  the 
returns,  and  declare  who  are  duly  elected  to  fill  those  offices; 
and,  if  any  two  or  more  persons  shall  have  an  equal  number  of 
votes,  and  a  higher  number  than  any  other  person,  the  general 
assembly  shall  determine  the  election  in  the  manner  herein- 
before provided;  and  the  returns  of  the  election  for  member  of 
Congress  shall  be  made  to  the  secretary  of  state  within  thirty 
days  after  the  day  of  election. 

M  S— 23 


354 


Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 


Sec.  11.  The  oaths  of  office,  herein  directed  to  be  taken, 
may  be  administered  by  any  judge  or  justice  of  the  peace, 
until  the  general  assembly  shall  otherwise  direct. 

Sec.  12.  Until  a  seal  of  state  be  provided,  the  governor  may 
use  his  private  seal. 

Done  by  the  representatives  of  the  people  of  Missouri, 
in  convention  assembled,  at  the  town  of  St.  Louis, 
on  the  nineteenth  day  of  July,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  twenty,  and  of  the 
independence  of  the  United  States  of  America  the 
forty-fifth. 

DAVID  BARTON,  President  of  the  Convention, 
and  Representative  from  the  County  of  St. 
Louis. 

From  the  County  of  Cape  Girardeau. 
Stephen  Byrd  Joseph  M'Ferron 

Alexander  Bucknor  [Buckner]      Richard  S.  Thomas. 
James  Evans 

From  the   County  of  Cooper. 
Robert  P.  Clark  Robert  Wallace. 

William  Sillard  [Lillardj 

From  the  County  of  Franklin. 
John  G.  Heath. 

From  the  County  of  Howard, 
Nicholas  S.  Burckhartt  Benjamin  H.  Reeves 

Jonathan  Smith  Findlay  John  Ray. 

Duff  Green 

From  the  County  of  Jefferson. 
S.  Hammond. 

From  the   County  of  Lincoln. 
Malcolm  Henry. 

From  the   County  of  Montgomery. 
Jonathan  Ramsay  James  Talbott. 

From  the  County  of  Madison. 
Nathaniel  Cook. 


Missouri  Constitution  of  1820.  355 

From  the  County  of  New  Madrid. 
Robert  D.  Dawson  Christo.  G.  Houts. 

From  the  County  of  Pike. 
Stephen  Cleaver. 

From   the   County  of  St.    Charles. 
Hiram  H.  Baber  Benjamin  Emmons. 

Nathan  Boone 

From  the  County  of  St.  Genevieve. 
R.  T.  Brown  H.  Dodge. 

John  D.  Cook  John  Scott. 

From  the  County  of  St.  Louis. 
Edw.  Bates  Wm.  Rector 

Pr.  Chouteau,  jun.  Thos.  F.  Riddick 

A.  M'Nair  John  C.  SulHvan. 

Bernd.  Pratte 

From  the  County  of  Washington. 
John  Rice  Jones  Samuel  Perry. 

John  Hutchings 

From  the  County  of  Wayne. 
EHjah  Bettis. 

Attest : 

WILLIAM  G.  PETTUS, 

Secretary  of  the  Convention. 


AN  ORDINANCE 

Declaring  the  assent  of  the  people  of  the  State  of  Missouri,  by 
their  representatives,  in  convention  assembled,  to  certain 
conditions  and  provisions  in  the  act  of  Congress  of  the 
sixth  of  March,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  twenty, 
entitled  "An  act  to  authorize  the  people  of  Missouri  terri- 
tory to  form  a  constitution  and  state  government,  and  for 
the  admission  of  such  state  into  the  Union  on  an  equal 
footing  with  the  original  states,  and  to  prohibit  slavery  in 
certain    territories." 


356  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

Whereas  the  act  of  Congress  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
approved  March  the  sixth,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
twenty,  entitled  "An  act  to  authorize  the  people  of  Missouri 
territory  to  form  a  constitution  and  state  government,  and  for 
the  admission  of  such  state  into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing 
with  the  original  states,  and  to  prohibit  slavery  in  certain  ter- 
ritories," contains  certain  requisitions  and  provisions,  and, 
among  other  things,  has  offered  to  this  convention,  when  formed, 
for  and  in  behalf  of  the  people  inhabitating  this  state,  for  their 
free  acceptance  or  rejection,  the  five  following  propositions, 
and  which,  if  accepted  by  this  convention,  in  behalf  of  the  people 
as  aforesaid,  are  to  be  obligatory  on  the  United  States,  viz: 
"First;  That  section  numbered  sixteen  in  every  township,  and 
"when  such  section  has  been  sold  or  otherwise  disposed  of, 
"other  lands  equivalent  thereto,  and  as  contiguous  as  may  be, 
"shall  be  granted  to  the  state  for  the  use  of  the  inhabitants  of 
"such  township  for  the  use  of  schools.  Second;  That  all  salt 
"springs,  not  exceeding  twelve  in  number,  with  six  sections  of 
"land  adjoining  to  each,  shall  be  granted  to  the  said  state  for 
"the  use  of  said  state,  the  same  to  be  selected  by  the  legislature 
"of  said  state,  on  or  before  the  first  day  of  January,  in  the  year 
"one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  twenty-five,  and  the  same, 
"when  so  selected,  to  be  used  under  such  terms,  conditions  and 
"regulations,  as  the  legislature  of  said  state  shall  direct;  pro- 
"vided,  that  no  salt  spring,  the  right  whereof,  now  is,  or  here- 
"after  shall  be  confirmed  or  adjudged  to  any  individual  or 
"individuals,  shall,  by  this  section,  be  granted  to  said  state; 
"and  provided,  also,  that  the  legislature  shall  never  sell  or 
"lease  the  same  at  any  one  time  for  a  longer  period  than  ten 
"years,  without  the  consent  of  Congress.  Third;  That  five 
"per  cent,  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  lands  lying  within 
"the  said  territory  or  state,  and  which  shall  be  sold  by  Con- 
"gress,  from  and  after  the  first  day  of  January  next,  after  de- 
"ducting  all  expenses  incident  to  the  same,  shall  be  reserved 
"for  making  public  roads  and  canals,  of  which  three-fifths 
"shall  be  applied  to  those  objects  within  the  state,  under  the 
"direction  of  the  legislature  thereof,  and  the  other  two-fifths 
"in  defraying,   under   the  direction  of   Congress,   the  expenses 


Missouri  Co7istitution  of  1S20.  3o7 

"to  be  incurred  in  making  of  a  road  or  roads,  canal  or  canals, 
"leading  to  the  said  state.  Fourth;  That  four  entire  sections 
"of  land  be,  and  the  same  are  hereby,  granted  to  the  said  state, 
"for  the  purpose  of  fixing  their  seat  of  government  thereon; 
"which  said  sections  shall,  under  the  direction  of  the  legislature 
"of  said  state,  be  located,  as  near  as  may  be,  in  one  body,  at 
"any  time,  in  such  townships  and  ranges  as  the  legislature 
"aforesaid  may  select,  on  any  of  the  public  lands  of  the  United 
"States;  provided,  that  such  location  shall  be  made  prior  to 
"the  public  sale  of  the  lands  of  the  United  States  surrounding 
"such  location.  Fifth;  That  thirty-six  sections,  or  one  entire 
"township,  which  shall  be  designated  by  the  President  of  the 
"United  States,  together  with  the  other  lands  heretofore  re- 
"serv^ed  for  that  purpose,  shall  be  reserved  for  the  use  of  a 
"seminary  of  learning,  and  vested  in  the  legislature  of  said 
"state,  to  be  appropriated  solely  for  the  use  of  such  seminary, 
"by  the  Legislature." 

Now,  this  convention,  for  and  in  behalf  of  the  people  in- 
habiting this  state,  and  by  the  authority  of  the  said  people, 
do  accept  the  five  before  recited  propositions  offered  by  the 
act  of  Congress  under  which  they  are  assembled;  and,  in  pur- 
suance of  the  conditions,  requisitions,  and  other  provisions, 
in  the  before  recited  act  of  Congress  contained,  this  convention, 
for  and  in  behalf  of  the  people  inhabiting  this  state,  do  ordain, 
agree,  and  declare,  that  every  and  each  tract  of  land  sold  by  the 
United  States,  from  and  after  the  first  day  of  January  next, 
shall  remain  exempt  from  any  tax  laid  by  order,  or  under  the 
authority,  of  the  state,  whether  for  state,  county,  or  township, 
or  any  other  purpose  whatever,  for  the  term  of  five  years,  from 
and  after  the  respective  days  of  sale  thereof;  and  that  the 
bounty  lands  granted,  or  hereafter  to  be  granted,  for  military 
services  during  the  late  war,  shall,  while  they  continue  to  be 
held  by  the  patentees,  or  their  heirs,  remain  exempt  as  afore- 
said from  taxation  for  the  term  of  three  years,  from  and  after 
the  date  of  the  patents  respectively;  Provided,  nevertheless, 
that,  if  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  shall  consent  to  repeal 
and  revoke  the  following  clause  in  the  fifth  proposition  of  the 
sixth  section  of  the  act  of  Coneress  before  recited,  and  in  these 


Q 


58  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 


words,  viz:  "That  every  and  each  tract  of  land,  sold  by  the 
United  States  from  and  after  the  first  day  of  January  next, 
shall  remain  exempt  from  any  tax  laid  by  order,  or  under  the 
authority,  of  the  state,  whether  for  state,  county,  or  township, 
or  any  other  purpose  whatever,  for  the  term  of  five  years  from 
and  after  the  day  of  sale,  and  further,"  that  this  convention, 
for  and  in  behalf  of  the  people  of  the  state  of  Missouri,  do 
hereby  ordain,  consent  and  agree,  that  the  same  be  so  revoked 
and  repealed,  without  which  consent  of  the  Congress  as  afore- 
said, the  said  clause  to  remain  in  full  force  and  operation  as 
first  above  provided  for  in  this  ordinance:  and  this  convention 
doth  hereby  request  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  so  to 
modify  their  third  proposition,  that  the  whole  amount  of  five 
per  cent,  on  the  sale  of  public  lands  therein  offered  may  be 
applied  to  the  construction  of  roads  and  canals,  and  the  pro- 
motion of  education,  within  this  state,  under  the  direction  of 
the  legislature  thereof.  And  this  convention,  for  and  in  behalf 
of  the  people  inhabiting  this  state,  and  by  the  authority  of  the 
said  people,  do  further  ordain,  agree,  and  declare,  that  this 
ordinance  shall  be  irrevocable  without  the  consent  of  the  United 
States. 

Done  in  convention,  at  St.  Louis,  in  the  state  of  Missouri, 
this  nineteenth  day  of  July,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord, 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  twenty,  and  of  the 
independence  of  the  United  States  of  America  the 
forty-fifth. 

By  order  of  the  Convention, 

DAVID  BARTON,  President. 
Attest, 

William  G.  Pettus,  Secretary. 

STATE  OF  MISSOURI, 

St.   Louis,   September  27,    1820. 

I,  David  Barton,  president  of  the  convention  of  tlio  late 
territory  of  Missouri,  certify  the  foregoing  to  be  true  copies  of 
the  constitution  of  said  state,  and  of  "An  ordinance  declaring 
the  assent  of  the  people  of  the  state  of  Missouri,  by  their  repre- 


Missouri  Constitution  of  IS 20.  359 

sentatives  in  convention  assembled,  to  certain  conditions  and 
provisions  in  the  act  of  Congress  of  the  sixth  of  March,  one 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  twenty,  entitled  'An  act  to  author- 
ize the  people  of  Missouri  territory  to  form  a  constitution  and 
state  government,  and  for  the  admission  of  such  state  into  the 
Union,  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  states,  and  to 
prohibit   slavery   in   certain   territories." 

DAVID  BARTON. 


APPENDIX  IV. 

MISSOURI'S  SOLEMN  PUBLIC  ACT,  JUNE  26,  182L 

A  SOLEMN  PUBLIC  ACT,  declaring  the  assent  of  this 
State  to  the  fundamental  condition  contained  in  a  resolution  passed 
by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  providing  for  the  admission 
of  the  State  of  Missouri  into  the  Unio7i  on  a  certain  condition. 

Whereas,  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States,  by  their  resolution  approved  on  the  second  day 
of  March,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  eighteen  hundred  and  twenty- 
one,  did  declare  that  Missouri  shall  be  admitted  into  this  Union, 
upon  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States  in  all  respects 
whatever,  upon  the  fundamental  condition,  that  the  fourth 
clause  of  the  twenty-sixth  section  of  the  third  article  of  the 
constitution,  submitted  on  the  part  of  said  State  to  Congress, 
shall  never  be  construed  to  authorize  the  passage  of  any  law, 
and  that  no  law  shall  be  passed  in  conformity  thereto,  by  which 
any  citizen  of  either  of  the  States  in  this  Union,  shall  be  ex- 
cluded from  the  enjoyment  of  any  of  the  privileges  and  immu- 
nities to  which  such  citizen  is  entitled  under  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States;  provided,  that  the  legislature  of  the  said 
State,  by  a  solemn  public  act,  shall  declare  the  assent  of  said 
state,  to  the  said  fundamental  condition,  and  shall  transmit 
to  the  President  of  the  U.  States,  on  or  before  the  fourth  Monday 
in  November  next,  an  authentic  copy  of  the  said  act;  upon  the 
receipt  whereof,  the  President,  by  proclamation  shall  announce 
the  fact,  whereupon,  and  without  any  further  proceeding  on 
the  part  of  Congress,  the  admission  of  said  state  into  this  LInion 
shall  be  considered  as  complete. 

Now,  for  as  much  as  the  good  people  of  this  state  have  by 
the  most  solemn  and  public  act  in  their  power,  virtually  assented 
to  the  said  fundamental  condition,  when  by  their  representa- 
tives in  full  and  free  convention  assembled,  they  adopted  the 
constitution   of   this   state,   and   consented   to   be   incorporated 

(3(50) 


Missouri's  Solemyi  Public  Act,  1821.  361 

into  the  Federal  Union,  and  governed  by  the  constitution  of 
the  United  States,  which  among  other  things  provides  that  the 
said  constitution,  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States  made  in 
pursuance  thereof,  and  all  treaties  made,  or  which  shall  be 
made  under  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  the 
supreme  law  of  the  land,  and  the  judges  in  every  state  shall 
be  bound  thereby,  anything  in  the  constitution  or  law  of  any 
state  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding;  and  although  this 
general  assembly  are  of  opinion  that  the  congress  of  the  United 
States  have  no  constitutional  power  to  annex  any  condition 
to  the  admission  of  this  state  into  the  federal  Union,  and  that 
this  general  assembly  have  no  power  to  change  the  operation 
of  the  constitution  of  this  state,  except  in  the  mode  prescribed 
by  the  constitution  itself;  Nevertheless,  as  the  congress  of  the 
United  States  have  desired  this  general  assembly  to  declare 
the  assent  of  this  state  to  said  fundamental  condition,  and 
forasmuch  as  such  declaration  will  neither  restrain,  or  enlarge, 
limit  or  extend  the  operation  of  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  or  of  this  state,  but  the  said  constitutions  will  remain 
in  all  respects  as  if  the  said  resolution  had  never  passed,  and 
the  desired  declaration  was  never  made,  and  because  such 
declaration  will  not  divest  any  power  or  change  the  duties  of  any 
of  the  constituted  authorities  of  this  state,  or  of  the  United 
States,  nor  impair  the  rights  of  the  people  of  this  state,  or  im- 
pose any  additional  obligation  upon  them,  but  may  promote 
an  earlier  enjoyment  of  their  vested  federal  rights,  and  this 
state  being  moreover  determined  to  give  to  her  sister  states, 
and  to  the  world,  the  most  unequivocal  proof  of  her  desire  to 
promote  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  Union,  Therefore, 
Be  it  enacted  and  declared  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of 
Missouri,  and  it  is  hereby  solemnly  and  publicly  enacted  and 
declared, 

That  this  state  has  assented  and  does  assent  that  the  fourth 
clause  of  the  twenty-sixth  section  of  the  third  article  of  the 
constitution  of  this  state,  shall  never  be  construed  to  authorize 
the  passage  of  any  law,  and  that  no  law  shall  be  passed  in  con- 
formity thereto,  by  which  any  citizen  of  either  of  the  United 
States  shall   be   excluded    from    the   enjoyment   of   any  of  the 


362  Missouri  Struggle  for  Statehood. 

privileges  and  immunities  to  which  such  citizens   are    entitled 
under  the  constitution  of  the  United  States. 

Approved,  June  26,   1821. 

Terr.  Laws.  v.  I.  p.  758-759. 

Mo.  Sess.  Act,  spec.  1821,  pp.  9-11. 


INDEX. 


NOTE: — Abbreviations:  const. — Mo.  constitution  of  1820;  const,  conv. — 
Mo.  constitutional  convention  of  1820;  (Del.) — Delegate  to  Mo.  const,  conv.; 
f — page  following;  n — note;  pop. — population;  rep. — representative;  sen. — 
senator  or  senate. 

General  terms,  e.  <?.,  government,  refer  to  Missouri  or  Upper  Louisiana  except 
where  otherwise  indicated. 


Adj.  gen.,  const.  240,  345. 

Administrative  acts  const,  conv.  168ff. 

Alcorn,  James,  rep.  268,  311. 

Allen,  Bethel,  rep.  268. 

Amendments,  const.  228,  347;  proposed  1820,  272,  277ff;  1821, 

318. 
Anti-Restrictionists  in  Mo.  1820,  121ff. 
Apportionment,  del.  const,  conv.  75n,  167;  rep.  &  sen.   1820, 

351f. 
Appropriation,  Mo.  Leg.  1820,  285;  1821,  317. 
Arkansas  county,  created,  46;  divided,  46;  opposed  incorp.  in 

Mo.  51f;  pop.  46nfn;  see  Pop. 
Arkansas    country    and    territory,    boundary    on    north,    47ff; 

created  48;  petitions  for  ter.  govt.  54n;  Mo.  R.  boundary 

petitions,  60;  pop.  46n;  omitted  in  Mo.  ter.  leg.  petition, 

53;  relation  to  Mo.  47f;  represented  unfairly  in  Mo.  ter. 

leg.  1818,  53;  trade  outlet,  47f,  49;  see  Petitions. 
Ashley,  Gen.  Wm.  H.,  265ff,  271. 
Attorney  gen.  const.  240,  343;  salary  285. 
Auditor,  const.  240,  338;  salary  285. 
Austin,  Moses,  140. 

(363) 


364  Index. 

Baber,  Hiram  H.  (Del.)  136,  149nf,  201. 

Bail,  const.  348. 

Ball,  John  S.  123,  129n;  rep.  268;  272;  311;  on  Bank  319. 

Bank,  State,  190f ;  const.  226,  344;  gen.  assbly.  1820,  289;  1821, 

318. 
Barcroft,  Elias,  sen.  269. 
Barton,  David,  (Del.)  42,  48,  84,  120f,  129,  136fif,  149n,  150nf; 

pres.  const,  conv.   167ff,   180,   187n;  author,  const.   198ff, 

leader  conv.  203f;  249;  slated  for  judge  258;  vote  for  U.  S. 

Sen.  272;  elected  Barton  273f;  not  permitted  seat  in  Cong. 

290;  letter  to  Mo.  1820-21,  293ff,  298f,  301;  seat  and  salary 

in  Cong.  306ff,  326. 
Barton,  Joshua,  84,  141,  205;  rep.  268f;  sec.  state  286. 
Bassenit,  G.  285. 
Bates,  Edward,  (Del.)  82,  121,  136,  140ff;  children  143n;  149nf ; 

176n;  on  taxation  180;  on  draft,  const.   183f,   186,   188ff, 

192;  author,  const.  195ff,  204,  207;  atty.  gen.  286. 
Bates,  Frederick  135n;  cand.  gov.  251f. 
Bates,  William,  rep.  268,  311. 
Beck,  Abner  124n,  129n. 
Bennett,  Wm.  166n. 
Bent,  Silas,  167;  sen.  269f. 
Benton,  Thomas,  author  resol.  1819,  84ff ;  93n,  99n,  101,  114-134, 

136n,    138,    149nf;  slated   for   U.   S.   Sen.   258;   272,    290; 

letters  to  Mo.  293fif;  seat  in  Cong,  and  pay,  306ff. 
Berry,  Maj.  T.  93. 
Bettis,  Elijah  (Del.)  150nf;  201. 
Bill  of  Rights,  1812,  33;  const.  183,  206. 


Index.  365 

Birthplace  of  Del.,  see  Del. 

Bobb,  John,  123;  129n. 

Hoggs,  L.  W.,  93. 

Bollinger,  Geo.  F.,  sen.  269. 

Boone,  Jesse  B.,  rep.  268;  288. 

Boone.  Maj.  Nathan,  (Del.)  135n;  152f;  171;  196ff. 

Boone  county,  288. 

Boone's  Lick  Country,  pop.  42,  72n;  on  boundaries,  45,  57;  on 

del.  70f,  167;  114;  pro-slavery,  117;  new  counties,  288;  309. 
Boonville,  Mo.,  275. 
Boulware,  Philip,  rep.  268. 
Boundary— Ark.   and    Mo.:  petition    1817,   39,  322;  1818,  43ff, 

324f;  1819,  50f,  60;  1820,  66ff,  213,  329;  see  Scott. 
Bounty  lands,  80. 
Bowles,  Caleb,  123;  129n. 
Brady,  Thomas,  270. 
Bribery,  const.  220,  332. 
Brickey,  John  S.  270;  288. 
Broadhead,  James  O.  141. 
Brow^n,  John,  124n. 
Brown,  Robert  T.  (Del.)  loOnf;  201. 
Bryant,  David,  119. 
Buckner,  Alexander,  (Del.)  55n;  119n;  138n;  150nf;  176n;  179; 

184;  author,  const.  196ff. 
Burckhartt,  N.  S.  (Del.)  pro-slavery,  117n;  150nf;  201. 
Byrd,  Abraham,  sen.  269. 
Byrd,  Stephen,  (Del.)  21;  150f;  201. 
Caldwell,  James,  rep.  268;  270;  310n. 


366  Index. 

Caldwell,  Samuel  K.  sen.  269. 

Callaway  county,  288. 

Campaign,  State  election  1820,  254-266. 

Canals,  78. 

Cape  Girardeau  county,  boundary,  34,  46;  cand.  const,  conv. 

118f;  delegates,   131f;  public  meet.   1819,   90;   Mo.   River 

boundary  petition,  51;  pop.  26.     See  Pop. 
Capitol  of  Mo.  72.     See  Perm,  and  Temporary  Seat  of  Govt. 
Carr,  Lucien,  313,  316. 
Carr,  William  C.  84. 
Carroll,  Henry,  88f. 
Caucus,  1820  in  St.  Louis,  121,  259. 
Celebrations,  see  Resolutions,  St.  Louis  etc. 
Census,  see  Population. 
Chancellor,  see  Judicial  Department;  277. 
Chancery  Court,  see  Judicial  Dept. ;  342. 
Chariton,  Howard  county,  public  dinners  1819,  93,  95;  147. 
Chariton  county,  288. 
Charless,  Joseph,  99n;  see  Editorials,   Mo.  Gazette;  120;   126; 

114-134;   171. 
Chouteau,  Col.  Augustus,  20;  views  on  govt.  23;  93n. 
Chouteau,  Pierre,  Jr.  (Del.)  121;  129f;  150nf;  176n;  192n;  200. 
Christy,  Wm.  State  auditor,  286;  288. 
Circuit  courts,  see  Judic.  Dept.,  342. 
Clark,  Bennett,  sen.  269. 
Clark,  Mrs.  Julia  (Wm.)  257n. 
Clark,  Robert  P.  (Del.)  117n;  135n;  160nf;  183;  200. 
Clark,  Gov.  Wm.  135n;  cand.  for  gov.  256ff;  261f;  272. 


Index.  367 

Clay,   Henry,   Mo. — Me.   bills,   G2;  toast  to,   94n;  second   Mo. 

Comp.  1821,  295ff ;  Mo.'s  idol  1821,  304. 
Cleaver,  Stephen,  (Del.)  152nf;  200. 
Clergy,  in  const.  219,  332. 
Cobb's  amend,  to  Mo.  bill  1821,  295. 
Cole  county,  288. 

Collector  of  public  money,  const.  332. 
College,  see  University  of  Missouri. 
Committee  on  Enrollment,  const.  192,  204. 
Committee  on  Style,  const.  188ff,  207ff. 
Congress,  Mo.  Bill  1818,  38,  41;  Mo.  Question  1818-1819,  5off; 

1819-1820,  62ff;  1820-1821,  290-301.     For  acts  relating  to 

Louisiana  and  Missouri,  see  Mo.  Laws  Organic. 
Congressional  Restriction  of  slavery  in  Missouri,  see  Congress, 

Const.  Conv.,  Public  Opinion. 
Constitutional  Convention  of  Missouri,  1820;  Benton  on,  86nf; 

committees,  182,  202ff;  cost  of,  175;  election  of  delegates, 

114-134;  the  delegates,  135-165;  draft,  const.  182fT;  enabling 

act,  68-80;  Journal  of,  169ff;  labors  of,  166-192;  see  Mo. 

Const.;  pay  of  del.  174ff;  wire-pulling  in,  258f. 
Constitutional  History,  see  La.  and  Mo.  Territory. 
Constitutions  of  States  and  United  States,  general  177f. 
Cook,  John  B.   (Del.)   48;  89;   136;   149n;   150nf;  conv.  work, 

167f;  180;  183fT;  188fT;  192;  author,  const.  195ff,  204,  208; 

slated  for  judge,  258;  judge,  286. 
Cook,  Nathaniel,  (Del.)  150nf;  168n;  183f;  186;  200;  camp,  for 

lieutenant  gov.  265;  272. 
Cooper  county,  43;  pro-slavery,  117;  see  Const.  Conv.,  Pop. 


368  Index. 

Coroner,  const.  247,  340. 

Cote  Sans  Dessein,  for  temp,  seat  of  govt.  275ff. 

Counties,  size,  233,  336;  courts  in,  246. 

County  courts,  342. 

Cummins,  Richard  W.  sen.  269. 

Dawson,  Robert  D.  (Del.)  150nf;  190;  author,  const.  196ff. 

Declaration  of  Rights,  const.  234ff;  347. 

Delegates  to  Const.  Conv.     See  Const.  Conv.;  election  of,  116- 

134;  personnel  of,  135-165;  pay  of,  175;  list  of,  354f. 
Desha,  Capt.  R.  M.  93. 
Devore,  Uriah  J.  rep.  268;  274;  276. 
Didier,  Pierre,  State  treasurer,  286. 
Distribution  of  Powers,  const.  214,  330. 
Dodge,  Augustus  Caesar,  147n. 
Dodge,  Henry,  (Del.)  89;  136;  144fT;  152f;  200. 
Dougherty,  William,  rep.  269. 
Douglass,  Thompson,  167n;  270. 
Duel,  Benton-Lucas,  260n. 
Dunklin  county,  45. 

Easton,  Rufus,  11;  letter  to  Jefferson,  1805,  21;  123;  141. 
Eaton  proviso  to  Mo.  bill,  291. 
Economic  position  of  Dehgates,  163. 
Editorials  in  Mo.  Newspapers,  1819  over  action  of  Cong.  1818- 

19,  99-106;  1820-21,  293,  297ff;  on  el.  of  del.  114-134. 
Education,  77;  344;  209;  leg.  control  in  const.  225f,  327;  see 

University. 
Education  of  Delegates,  163. 
Edwards'  amend,  to  Mo.  bill,  63. 


Index.  369 

Edwardsville  (III.)  Spectator,  104,  112n. 
Electors,  see  Leg.  Dept;  331f. 

Elections:  Territorial,   128n;  State,  const.  231,  340,  348;  cam- 
paign 1820,  255fT;  first,  249,  254f,  266ff,  353;  U.  S.  Senators, 

1820,  271ff. 
Elliott,  Henry,  cand.  for  lieut.  gov.  1820,  265;  272. 
Elston,  Elias,  rep.  268. 

Emancipation,  const.  232;  334f;  see  Slavery. 
Emmons,   Benjamin,    (Del.)   42;   150nf;   168n;   180;   183f;   192; 

author  const.  199ff;  sen.  269;  275f ;  326. 
Enabling  Act  for  Missouri,  66ff ;  114f ;  see  Mo.  Laws  Organic. 
English,  Robert,  rep.  268. 
Ernst,  Ferdinand,  112n. 
Eustis'  Mo.  Bill  1821,  294f. 
Evans,  James,  (Del.)  176n;  183;  185;  author,  const.  196ff;  201; 

204. 
Evans,  Joseph,  rep.  268;  276. 
Executive  Committee  on  Const.  235ff;  337ff. 
Ex-Post  Facto  law,  349. 
Ferguson,  G.  W.  121;  167;  270. 
Findlay,  J.  S.  (Del.)  93;  98;  pro-slavery,  117n;  136;  151n;  conv. 

work,  171nf,  188ff,  191f;  author,  const.  199ff,  204,  208. 
Flint,  Rev.  Timothy,  119. 
Florissant,   Mo.   anti-restriction   slavery   meet.    122;   for   temp. 

seat  of  govt.  275f. 
Foot's  Mo.  Resol.  1821,  295. 
Franklin,  Mo.  pub.  meet.  July  1819,  57,  88f,  93,  95;  May  1819, 

92;  1821,  302,  309;  for  location  of  temp,  seat  of  govt.  275f. 

M  S— 24 


370  Index. 

Franklin  county,  43n;  see  Const.  Con  v.,  Pop. 

Free  Negroes,  see  Mulattoes. 

French,  160;  see  La.  Dist.  and  Ter. 

Fromentin,  Eligius,  20f. 

Fugitive  Slave  Law,  80. 

Gamble,  Archibald,  167n. 

Garnier,  Joseph  V.  167n. 

Gasconade  county,  288. 

Geiger,  John,  119. 

General  Assembly  of  Missouri:  First,  1st  sess.  1820,  appor. 
248f;  members,  268ff;  meeting,  270ff;  committees,  271;  el. 
U.  S.  Sen.  271ff;  loc.  temp,  seat  govt.  271ff;  amend,  to 
const.  277ff;  salaries  and  mileage,  281f;  taxes  and  finances, 
283ff;  el.  and  sal.  of  State  officials,  285f;  presidential  elect- 
ors, 287f;  misc.  leg.,  new  counties,  perm,  seat  govt.  &  288; 
const.  351;  memorial  to  Cong.  294.  Special  Session,  June 
1821:  no  demand  for,  308;  gov.  proc.  309;  meeting,  310; 
resol.  of  Cong.  31  Iff;  solemn  public  act,  31  Iff;  error  in 
Cong.  Resol.  31of;  const,  amend,  proposed,  318;  public 
opinion  on  session,  319;  see  also  Leg.  Dept. 

Gentry,  Richard,  93. 

Geyer,  Henry  S.  84;  121;  rep.  269;  278;  281;  289;  310n;  311;  316. 

Government,  French  views  on,  13,  15,  22f,  30f. 

Governor,  const.  221,  236ff,  331,  337f,  342;  first  State  camp, 
for,  256ff,  345. 

Grand  Jury,  see  Presentments. 

Graves,  Thomas  W.  rep.  268. 


Index.  371 

Green,  Duff,  (Del.)  92f;  pro-slav.  117n;  136;  147ff;  150nf;  work 

in  const,  conv.  171f;  180;  183f;  author,  const.  199ff;  207; 

rep.  268f;311. 
Great  Seal  of  Missouri,  see  Seal,  State. 
Hall,  John,  rep.  268. 
Hammond,  Samuel,   (Del.)   120;   131n;  149n;   loOnf;   167;  183; 

author,  const.   196ff. 
Harper,  William,  slated  for  judge,  258;  chancellor,  287. 
Harris,  Tyre,  rep.  268. 
Heath,  John  G.  (Del.)  loOnf;  conv.  work,  171f;  179;  184;  200; 

rep.  268f;  31  If. 
Heath,  R.  &  J.  276. 
Hempstead,  Ch.  S.  48. 
Hempstead,  Edward,  34. 
Hemstead,  Thomas,  114. 
Henry,  Isaac  N.  171n. 

Henry,  Malcolm,  (Del.)  131n;  135n;  150nf;  201. 
Henry  &  Co.,  see  St.  Louis  Enquirer. 
Herculaneum,  Mo.  meet,  at  1820,  119;  for  loc.  temp,  seat  govt. 

275. 
Hodder,  Prof.  314,  316. 

Holmes'  Rept.  to  House  on  Mo.  Bill,  1820,  65;  toast  to,  94. 
Homestead  Bill,  146. 
Honey,  John  W.  120. 
Horrocks,  Edward,  167n. 
House  of  Representatives,  see  Leg.  Dept. 
Houts,  Christo.  G.  (Del.)  158nf;  191;  201. 
Howard,  Gov.  Benj.  Proclamation  1812,  34. 


372  Index. 

Howard  county,  el.  del.  1820,  132;  State  el.  1820,  265;  grand 
jury  1819,  97;  Mt.  Pleasant  Bap.  Assn.  1819,  91;  pro- 
slav.  117;  slave  pop.  120n;  pub.  meet.  May  1819,  92,  July 
1819,  57,  88f,  93;  see  also  Boone's  Lick,  Const.  Conv.,  Pop. 

Hudspeth,  Geo.  rep.  268. 

Hunt,  Wilson  P.  121fn;  129nf. 

Hunter,  Nancy  Ann,  147n. 

Hutchings,  John,  (Del.)  39;  158nf;  201. 

Illinois  Enab.  Act.  73f;  76. 

Immigration  to  Mo.  along  Mo.  River,  1812-1818,  45;  115;  133. 

Impeachments,  const.  230;  335. 

Indians,  removal  of  to  west  of  Miss.  R.  views  of  Jefferson  18f. 

Inferior  tribunals,  const.  246,  342. 

Internal  improvements,  78;  const.  226,  327,  344. 

Iowa,  southern  part  little  known  1818,  44. 

Irish  of  St.  Louis,  96. 

Jackson,  Mo.  business  and  political  center  1818,  55n;  pub. 
meet.  1819,  90;  114. 

Jackson  Missouri  Herald,  lOOn;  104;  pro-slav.  120n,  130. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  letter  on  moving  Indians,  19;  first  Mo.  Comp. 
65. 

Jefferson  county,  43n;  grand  jury  1819,  98;  cand.  for  conv.  119f; 
results  of  el.  131f. 

Johnson,  James,  rep.  268. 

Jones,  John  Rice  (Del.)  38;  48;  136ff;  children  of,  140n;  144; 
149nf;  168n;  176n;  183ff;  187n;  191;  author,  const.  196ff; 
204;  slated  for  U.  S.  Sen.  258,  vote  for,  272;  clerk  of  house, 
270;  judge,  286. 


Index.  373 

Journal  Mo.  Const.  Conv.  1820,  see  Const.  Conv. 

Judicial  Department,  const.  242ff;  341ff. 

Judiciary  Com.  on  const.  183. 

Jury  Trial,  const.  348. 

Justice,  const.  348. 

Justices  of  Peace,  const.  343. 

Lafayette  county,  135n. 

Lake  Michigan  to  Miss.  River,  78. 

Land  Grants,  Spanish,  11,  113;  Lucas,  121,  274. 

Land  Speculators,  12n. 

Lawrence  county,  pop.  47;  relation  to  Mo.  49;  trade  outlet,  49; 

see  Ark.  Ter.,  Petitions,  Population. 
Laws,  for  acts  relating  to  La.  and  Mo.,  see  Mo.  Laws  Organic. 
Lawyer  Junto  of  St.  Louis,  106n,  259. 
Lawyers,  French  dislike  of,  24;  in  Mo.  Ter.  155f;  and  merchants, 

157f. 
Lead  Mines,  77,  327. 
Leduc,  M.  P.  121;  rep.  268;  273. 
Legislative  acts  of  Const.  Conv.  176ff. 
Legislative  Committee  of  Const.  Conv.  183. 
Legislative  Dept.  in  Const.  215ff,  330-336. 
Legislative  Process,  const.  333,  338. 
Lieutenant  Governor,  const.  221;  239f;  339. 
Lillard,  Wm.  (Del.)  slave  owner,  117n;  135n;  150nf;  201;  rep. 

268. 
Lillard  county,  288. 
Limitations  on  Legislative  Dept.  const.  231f. 


374  Index. 

Lincoln  county,  43n;  grand  jury  1819,  98;  pro-slavery  del.  118; 
el.  of  del.  131f;  see  Const.  Conv.,  Pop. 

Lindsey,  John,  94. 

Linn,  Lewis  F.  147n. 

Little  Platte  River,  44;  58. 

Logan,  David,  sen.  269. 

Logan,  James,  288. 

Long,  Wm.  124n;  129. 

Louisiana,  cession  and  sentiment  at  time  of,  llfT;  Fr.  and  Span- 
ish title  and  law,  9;  District,  15f;  Province,  9flF;  State, 
168n;  Ter.  9-36;  see  Population. 

Lowndes  com.  of  House,  291f. 

Lowry,  Dr.  J.  J.  93. 

Lucas,  John  B.  C.  95n;  121;  124f;  129;  272. 

McArthur,  John,  270. 

McFarland,  Wm.  268. 

McFerron,  Joseph,  (Del.)  150nf;  176f;  180;  191f;  author,  const. 
195ff;  rep.  268. 

McGirk,  Andrew  S.  (Howard  co.)  rep.  268;  279;  281;  31  If. 

McGirk,  Mathias  (St.  Louis  co.)  121;  sen.  269;  275f ;  judge,  286. 

Mackay,  James,  123n. 

McNair,  Alexander  (Del.)  84;  121fn;  129;  136;  149n;  151nf;  201; 
camp,  for  Gov.  1820,  257ff;  262f;  election  and  first  mess. 
271,  277,  282;  285n;  proc.  and  mess.  1821,  309f. 

Madison  county,  43n;  see  Const.  Conv.,  Pop. 

Maine-Missouri,  see  Mo.  Comp. 

Mansion  House  Hotel,  166n. 

Marthasville,  Mo.  pub.  dinner  1819,  94. 


Index.  375 

Masons  in  Const.  Conv.  157f. 

Memorials,  see  Petitions. 

Merchants  in  Const.  Conv.  157f. 

Messages,  Gov.  McNair,  first,  271;  special  on  const,  amend. 

1820,   277;  veto  on  salary  for  leg.   282;   proc.    1821,   309; 

mess.  June   1821,  310. 
Mileage,  see  Gen.  Assembly. 
Militia,  const.  227,  345;  239. 
Mine  a  Burton,  118. 
Missouri  Boundary,  see  Boundary;  n.  w.  part  knov/n  in  1818, 

44;  s.  e.  part  in  controversy  1818,  45. 
Missouri  Compromise,  first  1820,  63fT;  opinion  of  Jefferson,  65; 

second  1821,  290-301,  text  of,  300,  receipt  of  news  of  in 

Mo.  302. 
Missouri  Constitution,   1820,   length,   170;  printing  of,      173n; 

trans,  into  Fr.  173n;  distrib.  of,  173n;  editions,  173n,  314; 

drafting  of,  176ff;  framing,   182ff;  engrossed  and  adopted, 

192;    authorship,    193-211;    origin    and    content,    212-253; 

presentment  to  Cong.  291f;  text  of,  329-354. 
Missouri  Herald,  see  Jackson. 

Missouri  Gazette,  (St.  Louis)  99nf;  lOOff;  106f;  for  slavery  re- 
striction, 120n,  130;  against  lawyer  junto,  259. 
Missouri  Hotel,  270. 
Missouri    Intelligencer    (Franklin)    99fn;    104;    pro-slav.     12n; 

130;  309. 
Missouri  Laws,  Organic,   10;  act  of  Cong.  Oct.  31,   1803,   14; 

ihid.  March  26,  1804,  15;  ibid.  March  3,  1805,  24ff;  ihid. 

June  4,  1812,  30ff,  34;  ibid.  Apr.  29,  1816,  35;  ibid.  March 


376  Index. 

6,  1820,  65ff;  Mo.  Const.  1820,  212-254,  329-359;  second 

Mo.  Comp.  March  2,  1821,  300;  Proc.  of  Pres.  Monroe, 

Aug.  10,  1821,  319. 
Missouri  Question,  see  Cong.,  Mo.  Comp.,  Scott. 
Missouri  River,  as  northern  bound,  for  Mo.  40;  48;  58fT;  322. 
Missouri  Statehood,  first  petition  for,   1817,  37fif;  first  House 

bill  for,  38;  enabUng  act,  65;  const.  212-253;  de  facto  state, 

254-289;   finances   of,    283fT;   see   General   Assembly,    Mo. 

Laws,  Petitions,  Resol. 
Missouri  Territory,  const,  hist.  9-36;  name,  31. 
Monroe,  Daniel,  268. 

Monroe,  Pres.  James,  Mo.  Proc.  1821,    319f. 
Montgomery  county,  43n;  pub.  meet.  83,  94;  grand  jury,  98; 

see  Const.  Conv.,  Pop. 
Moore,  Isidore,  sen.  269;  275. 
Mount  Pleasant  Baptist  Assn.  resol.  1819,  91. 
Mulattoes,  const.  224f ;  335;  in  Cong.  290-301,  314. 
Murphy,  Daniel,  rep.  268. 
Musick,  David,  rep.  268. 
Nelson,  Capt.  92. 
New  Madrid  county,  26;  34;  demand  for  inclusion  in  Mo.  45f, 

49,  55;  pub.  meet.  1819,  90;  see  Const.  Conv.,  Pop. 
New  Madrid  Strip,  see  Ark.  Ter.,  Petitions,  Public  Opinion. 
Newport,  Mo.  for  location  temp,  seat  govt.  276. 
Newspapers  in  Mo.  character  in  1819-20,  99fn ;  position  on  slavery 

99ff ;  extent  of,  155;  see  Editorials,  Jackson  Missouri  Herald, 

Missouri  Gazette,   Missouri  Intelligencer,   St.    Charles  Mis- 

sourian,  St.  Louis  Enquirer. 


Index.  Zll 

Northwest  Ordinance,   115. 

OTallon,  John,  87n. 

Ordinance  of  Mo.  1820,  79;  176ff;  355ff. 

Ordinance  of  Const.  Conv.  for  pay  of  delegates,  174f. 

Osage  Boundary  Line,  39;  46;  66. 
"Paddy's  Wedding,"  303. 

Palmer,  Martin,  rep.  268. 

Patten,  N.  Jr.,  92n. 

Patton,  Nathaniel,  lOOn. 

Peck,  Rev.  M.  127n. 

Pemiscot  county,  demand  for  inclusion  in  Mo.  45. 

Penrose,  Clement  B.  123n. 

Permanent  Seat  of  Government,  79;  190;  204;  227;  com.  on, 
288f;  327;  const.  346. 

Perry,  Samuel  (Del.)  135n;  150nf;  author,  const.  195ff;  sen. 
269. 

Perry  county,  288. 

Petitions,  1804  La.  Dist.  17fT;  1809-11,  La.  Ter.  26fT;  Mo.  for 
Statehood,  37-80;  1817,  37ff,  321fif;  first  presented  to  Cong. 
38;  1818,  41fT,  55,  324ff;  Mo.  River  Bound,  petitions,  1819, 
50f,  57ff;  Ark.  petitions,  1818-19,  51,  60n;  Mt.  Zion  Bap. 
Assn.  1819,  64;  see  Presentments,  Resolutions;  Cape  Girar- 
deau CO.  on  const,  amend.  297;  Madison  co.  on  same,  277. 

Pettibone,  Rufus,  124f ;  129n;  judge,  287. 

Pettus,  Wm.  G.  149n;  150nf;  secretary  const,  conv.  167flf; 
private  sec.  to  Gov.  McNair,  285n. 

Pike  county,  43;  see  Const.  Conv.,  Pop. 

Platte  Purchase,  58. 


378  Index. 

Poetry,  early  Missouri,  303. 

Politics  in  pioneer  Mo.  days,  153ff. 

Population,    Upper   Louisiana,    1804,    11;    1810,    26;   Mo.  Ter. 

1817-18,  42f,  321;  slave,  1818,  43,  324,  328;  43n;  1820  by 

counties,  69ff;  72n;  slave  and  white,  116. 
Potosi,  Mo.  pub.  meet.  1819,  89;  for  temp,  seat  govt.  274fT. 
Pratte,  Bernard  (Del.)  121;  129;  150nf;  190;  192n;  201. 
Preamble,  const.  213f,  329. 
Presentments  of  Grand  Juries  of  Mo.  96-99. 
President  const,  conv.  167n. 
Presidential  Electors  of  Mo.  1820,  287f ;  299. 
Price,  Risdon  H.  123;  129;  129n. 

Printing,  const,  conv.  170ff;  state,  1820,  285;  1821,  317. 
Pro-Slavery,  see  Anti-Restrictionists,  Public  Opinion,  Slavery. 
Public  Meetings  in  Mo.,  see  Petitions,  Resol.,  Toasts,  cities  etc. 
Public  Opinion  in  Missouri,  1803-04  over  La.  Cession,  llff;  act 

of  Cong.  Oct.  1803,  14;  ibid.  March  26,  1804,  16ff,  21ff; 

ibid.  March  3,  1805,  24;  over  Mo.  R.  Boundary  petitions, 

1819,  57ff;  over  action  of  Cong,  and  slavery,  1819,  81-113; 

ibid.  1820,  and  election  of  del.  114-134;  over  Cong,  and  Mo. 

Const.  1820-21,  292ff,  297f,  300f,  304fT;  over  special  sess. 

Leg.  1821,  319;  see  Editorials,  Presentments,  Resolutions, 

and  Toasts. 
Ralls,  Daniel,  rep.  268;  273. 
Ralls  county,  288. 
Ramsey,  Jonathan  (Del.)  150nf;  conv.  work,  174,  183,  185,  187n; 

author,  const.  196ff,  204ff;  camp,  for  lieut.  gov.  264f. 


Index.  379 

Ray,  John,  (Del.)  slaveowner,  117n;  loOnf;  179;  author,  const. 

196;  rep.  268. 
Ray  county,  288. 
Rector,  Stephen,  92n. 
Rector,  Wm.  V.  (Del.)  93n;  121;  122n;  129n;  loin;  166n;  171; 

176n;  183;  187n;  200;  205;  318. 
Reeves,  Benj.  H.  (Del.)  98;  117n;  149n;  150nf;  191;  201;  209. 
Relfe,  James  H.  rep.  268. 
Religion,  of  del.  162f ;  const.  347. 
Representatives,  see  Leg.  Dept;  first  leg.  1820,  268. 
Resolutions,  against  Cong,    action,   1818-19,    82-92;    St.  Louis 

Cir.  Crt.  1820,  293;  ter.  leg.  1818,  326flf. 
Restrictionists  of  slavery  in  Mo.  121fT;  13 If. 
Revision  of  laws,  const.  233 ;  336. 
Riddick,  Thomas  F.  (Del.)  129n;  150nf;  167fn;  191fn;  author. 

const.  195fif;  209;  328. 
Roads,  public,  78. 
Roberts'  Amend.  63;  resol.  299f. 
Rogers,  Thomas,  rep.  268. 
Rollins,  James  S.  141 ;  209. 
Rubottom,  Ezekiel,  rep.  268. 
Rutter,  Edmund,  rep.  268;  279;  311. 
St.   Charles  county,   26;  34;  celebration   1819,   94;  grand  jury 

present.  1819,  97;  demand  for  spec.  sess.  leg.  1821,  308f; 

see  Const.  Conv.,  Pop. 
St.  Charles  town,  for  temp,  seat  govt.  274ff. 
St.  Charles  Mis  sour  ian,  lOOn. 
St.  Ferdinand  township,  pub.  meet.  87;  95;  109n. 


380  Index. 

Ste.  Genevieve  county,  26;  34;  pub.  meet.  1819,  89;  temp,  seat 

govt.  275;  see  Const.  Conv.,  Pop. 
St.  Louis  city,   15;  pub.  meet.  93,  95ff;  receipt  news  passage 

Enab.   Act.    114;    caucus    121;    restrictionist    126f;   temp. 

seat  govt.  275ff.^ 
St.  Louis  county,  26;  34;  pub.  meet.  84ff,  87f,  96;  cand.  for 

conv.  120ff;  el.  del.  128f;  el.  1820,  265;  resol.  293;  demand 

for  spec.  sess.  leg.  1821,  308f;  see  Const.  Conv.,  Pop. 
St.  Louis  Enquirer,  37;  99nff;  30;  148;  on  const.  260f;  on  Cong. 

1820-21,  297f. 
Salaries,  see  Mo.  Const;  effect  on  1820  el.  262f,  277. 
Saline  county,  288. 
Salt  River  country,  70;  288. 
Salt  Springs,  77;  327. 
Schedule,  com.  on,  191;  const.  248,  350ff. 
Schools,  const.  344;  see  Univ. 
Scott,  John,  (Del.)  38;  opposed  Mo.  R.  boundary,  48,  51;  in  re 

Ark.  Ter.   54n,  boundary,   58,   intro.   petition,   1819,   62ff; 

67;  letter  on  del.   appor.   72ff,   77,  107;   resol.   of  approval 

of,    86;    toasts    to,    93f;    136;    140n;    149n;   150nf;    179f; 

author,  const.  195ff;  204;  209;  el.   1820,  264,  27;    in  Cong. 

1820-21,  306ff,  328. 
Scripps,  George  H.  118;  131n. 
Seal  of  the  State,  const.  241,  340;  model  of  1820,  285,  289;  gov. 

priv.  seal,  249. 
Second  Mo.  Comp.,  see  Mo.  Comp. 
Secretary  of  State,  const.  240;  salary  285f ;  340. 
Select  committee  on  const.  184ff. 


Index.  381 

Senators,  const,  see  Leg.  Dept. 

Sentiment,  see  Public  Opinion. 

Settlers  in  Mo.,  from  slave-states,  115. 

Shannon,  William,  288. 

Shaw,   94. 

Sheriff,  const.  247,  340. 

Simonds,  Nathaniel,  276. 

Simpson,  Robert,  124f;  129n. 

Slavery,  in  Louisiana  Dist.  memorial  Jan.  1804,  14;  petition 
Sept.  1804,  18,  110;  in  Mo.  Ter.  Talmadge  amend.  1819, 
53fn;  pub.  opinion  in  Mo.,  115-134;  extent  and  status  of, 
116f,  133f;  const.  224,  232,  334f;  303;  see  Benton,  84ffn; 
Cong.;  Mo.  Comp;  Pop;  Pub.  Opinion;  Scott. 

Smiley,  Thomas,  rep.  268;  311. 

Smith,  Gen.  T.  A.  87n. 

Smith,  Wm.,  rep.  268;  276. 

Solemn  Public  Act,  opinion  of  In  Mo.  304f;  editor.  St.  L.  Enq. 
1821,  306;  308;  McNalr's  message  on,  310;  act.  leg.  311ff; 
"error,"  312ff;  legality  and  force  of,  316f;  text,  360ff. 

Spanish  land  grants,  see  Land  Grants. 

Statehood,  see  Mo.  Statehood. 

Steamboat,  "Independence"  92. 

Stevenson,  Robert  M.  rep.  268. 

Stewart,  Alexander,  rep.  268;  270. 

Stoddard,  Capt.  Amos,  15. 

Storrs',  amend,  to  Mo.  bill,  64;  to  Foot's  resol.  1821,  295. 

Strother,  Samuel  D.  rep.  268. 

Stuart,  Alexander,  123n. 


382  Index. 

Sullivan,  John  C.  (Del.)  121;  123n;  129n;  135n;  150nf;  200. 
Supreme  Court,  see  Judic.  Dept.;  camp,  for  judges,  1820,  256ff; 

341. 
Talbott,  James,  (Del.)  150nf ;  176n;  200;  sen.  269. 
Talmadge,  amend.  1819,  55;  toast  to,  94. 
Taxation,  non-residents,  179ff,  233;  state  283ff;  350. 
Taylor,  toast  to,  94. 
Teachers  in  const,  conv.  164. 
Temporary  Seat  of  Gov.  190;  210;  274ff. 
Tennessee  const.  86. 
Tenure,  see  Leg.  Dept. 
Thomas,  Judge  Richard  S.  (Del.)  55n;  149nfnf;  work  in  conv. 

167f,   176n,   180;  draft,  const.   183f,   187n;  author,   const. 

196fT,  206;  judge  287. 
Thomas'  amend,  to  Mo.  bill,  63. 
Thornton,  John,  288. 
Toasts,  1819  in  Mo.  in  re  to  Cong.  92-96. 
Todd,  David,  judge,  287. 
Treason,  const.  349. 

Treasurer,  State,  const.  241,  336;  salary  285. 
Treat,  Judge  Samuel,  316. 
Treaty  of  Cession,  1803,  see  La. 
Trexler,  H.  A.  116. 
Tribunals,  inferior,  const.  342. 
Tucker,  Nathaniel  B.  166n;  judge  287. 
U.  S.  land  in  Mo.,  const.  233;  345. 
U.  S.  Senators  from  Mo.  1820,  256;  see  Barton,  Benton. 


Index.  383 

University  of  Mo.,   79;  const.   226,   326,  344;  see   Education, 

Rollins,  Scott. 
Vansant,  Abner,  119f;  131n. 
Veto,  const.  338;  see  Messages  of  Gov. 
Viles,  Prof.  Jonas,  313. 
Vincennes,  cap.  La.  Dist.  18. 
Walker,  J.  Hardeman,  55n. 

Wallace,  Robert,  (Del.)  slave  owner,  117n;  158nf;  176n;  200. 
Walton,  Henry,  rep.  268. 
Warner,  Jabez,  270. 

Washington  county,   grand  jury,    1817,   39;  pub.   meet.    1819, 
89;  grand  jury,  1819,  99;  pro-slav.  118;  el.  1820,  131;  see 
Const.  Conv.,  Pop. 
Waters,  Joab,  rep.  from  Ste.  Gen.  268;  311. 
Waters,  Richard  H.  rep.  from  New  Madrid,  268. 

Watson,  Robert  G.  288. 

Wayne  county  43n;  see  Const.  Conv.,  Pop. 

Western  Emigrant,  37. 

Western  Journal,  37. 

White,  John  B.  288. 

White  River,  45. 

Wilcox,  Maj.  J.  D.  92n. 

Whig  party,  141,  143. 

Williams,  Samuel,  rep.  268. 

Wright,  Morgan,  rep.  268. 

Writs,  const.  343. 

Young,  (?)  rep.  311. 

V 


Klil UKN  TO  D£5K  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

RENEWALS  ONLY— TEL.  NO.  642-3405 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  whidi  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  tt>  immediate  recall 


LP   MAR  14  70 -5  PM 


l?EacI8.    JUM2 


1981 


ia^l7fiB5 


RECEIVED 


BY^ 


PM 


NOV  2  0  \'sm 


CIRCULATION  DEPT. 


'AUB«4  200!i 


M 


) 


PM 

5 


LD21A-60m-6,'69 
(J9096sl0)476-A-32 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


;JP4       «^^l«^n»'eral  Library 

LD  21A-50m-4,'  60  UniTcrsity  of  California 

(A9562sl0)476B  Berkeley 


^  .  ^  !<v^ 


'•^. 


-ji.1^ 


CDBfi'^STmD 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  LIBRARY 


*  **         :  »      ^  LI:  • 


>".-  ,^ 


\» 


i^!^'.:i  tW     ijr/*: 


^i. 


